THIS is what treason looks like

[Tangmo]

You don't know what treason is either not that I am surprised.
Hillary in a landslide lol.

Please look up the definition of treason and get back too us.

Hey the post is both comical and vacuous.

I first studied treason as a polysci undergrad in the 1960s.

You've read it and I've read it so your command request is silly not to mention presumptuous.

The present investigations and discussion are a matter of interpreting the statute and the Constitution as of the 2016 election of Potus. This is where youse need to be on the extreme right over there. Reading the text is basic only and the text has existed for a long time.

Specifically, you perhaps did read my post #64. Or perhaps not. Either way you are way behind it and its content and substance. So unless and until begin to address serious interpretations of what treason might look like as of 2016 you are absent from the discourse of the present.

Which means you need to put on your thinking cap because this is not high school civics in Alabama. Y'know, the high school history class where the teacher is a retired NCO who after he got out went to RightwingU on the G.I. Bill.

 

[Tangmo]

Manifort and Gates are going to trial and Trump isn't the only one who tweets, nor is Trump the only one who leaves a trail of tweets.

Given the fire and fury that occurs when people start to discuss treason, the current charges against Manafort and his right hand man Richard Gates will do: "Conspiracy Against The United States."

As the first charges filed in the investigation it's a great opener....


How Much Prison Time Do Paul Manafort & Rick Gates Face?

The Department of Justice announced that President Donald Trump‘s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and his business partner Rick Gates were charged by a federal grand jury on 12 counts. Those charges include conspiracy against the United States.

The pair are the first people facing indictments as a result of Mueller’s investigation, but likely won’t be the last. The charges are tied to work performed by Manafort and his associated for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine from around 2008 until 2014. Manafort worked directly with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and was provided millions of dollars in payments to lobby for him.

If convicted of the charges, the two could face decades in prison.

Conspiracy against the United States: According to 18 U.S. Code 371, someone convicted of the charge faces a sentence of up to five years in a federal prison and fines of up to $250,000.

Conspiracy to launder money: According to 18 U.S. Code 1956, someone found guilty of the charge faces a sentence of up to 20 years in a federal prison in addition to a fine totaling twice the value of the money laundered (up to $500,000).

Acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal. Anyone found guilty of the charge faces a maximum of 10 years in a federal prison.

Making false and misleading FARA statements: Any person who violates the law or makes false statements regarding the topic faces a maximum fine of $10,000 and a maximum prison sentence of five years.

Making false statements: Those convicted of the charge face a fine and maximum sentence of five years in a federal prison.

Failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts (seven counts): The failure to file an FBAR while also violating other laws, like Manafort and Gates are accused of doing, comes with a fine of up to $500,000 and a sentence of up to 10 years in jail.

Therefore, the total maximum sentence for Manafort and Gates, if found guilty of all 12 counts, is 115 years in a federal prison.

How Much Prison Time Do Paul Manafort & Rick Gates Face?


This is for starters in this investigation so there are no complaints here. We know the investigation is going right up to Don on his Beanstalk.

 

[cpwill]

That doesn't cut it.

Let's start out with Politifact....

:lol: oh, wow, Politifact.

Hey, how about I cite Sean Hannity to prove that Obama committed treason?

The Special Operations OPSEC group said the administration "willfully leaked the existence of STUXNET, allowing our enemies to learn more of our secrets and of our operations."

There are big holes in this argument. As the time line shows, public knowledge of STUXNET long preceded any comment from any Obama administration official. There was extensive coverage and speculation about possible U.S. involvement months before June 2012. Our enemies didn't need the Obama administration to tell them this -- there was plenty of coverage before there was any attribution to Obama's team.

Still, it's clear that the Obama administration provided details -- including a quote from Obama himself in a meeting -- to the New York Times. So the administration -- broadly defined -- confirmed its operational role in the creation of the worm.

We rate the claim Half True.

Yeah. "Rumors of US involvement" =/= a government official saying "This was a joint-US Israeli effort, and here is the unit name of the Israelis involved".

There are rumors of lots of classified stuff. For example, there are lots of rumors (including many claims by ISIS and others) that the Israelis have penetrated a number of organizations. Confirming them when you don't have the authority to do so is still a violation of the Espionage Act.

Or, in these two cases, not a violation of said act, because the individual who decided to release that information had the authority to do so.

In the Iran negotiations and agreement the U.S. was a part of the P-5 + 1. That is, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany: USA, UK, France, Russia, China. Putin got no special treatment by Potus

This is unfortunately incorrect, as the Poles can attest. We hoped to have Russia on board helping to pressure Iran to come to a deal with us, and so we gave up the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, hoping that would engender positive feelings about us, and bring them on board. Even after that failed, Obama was (rather famously) promising them more flexibility after his re-election, and mocking Romney for claiming Russia was a threat.

W. Bush, Obama, and now Trump have all come into office thinking they can make sweet deals with Putin and get stuff done. For Bush, the realization this was false came in his second term. For Obama, it appears to have come after Hillary lost the election. I have no idea if there will be a point where it will come for Trump, but I would bet it would require a sense on his part that he'd been personally insulted or cut off.

and as far as we know Putin got no privileges or exclusive intelligence information as shared with our treaty allies

Which is irrelevant, since the question is whether or not the POTUS has the authority to de or reclassify information at will. He does, and he can, and Presidents have regularly done so, for various reasons.

Going back to JFK, the information provided to the UN was in the known interest of public knowledge which itself and in turn was knowingly presented in the national security interest of the United States

Exactly. The President is authorized to do with Classified Information whatever he deems to be in the interests of the United States.* If Trump decided we were better off with him impressing the Russians with how smart he was, and chose to share classified information in order to accomplish that - well, I think it's a moronic and dangerous decision, but it is also fully within his authority to do. If America doesn't like having a security risk for POTUS, then America shouldn't have put up two candidates who were both security risks for the office.


*with one notable exception having to do with initiating covert actions.

Conversely, the American people do not know what the classified information is that Trump gifted to Putin during a meeting in the Oval office of Putin's principal operatives and closed to the American public to include media.

That's right, and that is also his prerogative.

I continue to be equally patient meanwhile for anyone to cite instances of when a Potus had a meeting in the Oval Office with the Russian ambassador to include the Russian Foreign Minister and to which U.S. media were excluded while only Russian media only were admitted only and exclusively.

Precedent is a legal question - there are plenty of precedents of US Presidents' of both parties declassifying information, including information that wasn't technically ours, but rather given to us by allies.

 

[Tangmo]

:lol: oh, wow, Politifact.

Hey, how about I cite Sean Hannity to prove that Obama committed treason?



Yeah. "Rumors of US involvement" =/= a government official saying "This was a joint-US Israeli effort, and here is the unit name of the Israelis involved".

There are rumors of lots of classified stuff. For example, there are lots of rumors (including many claims by ISIS and others) that the Israelis have penetrated a number of organizations. Confirming them when you don't have the authority to do so is still a violation of the Espionage Act.

Or, in these two cases, not a violation of said act, because the individual who decided to release that information had the authority to do so.



This is unfortunately incorrect, as the Poles can attest. We hoped to have Russia on board helping to pressure Iran to come to a deal with us, and so we gave up the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, hoping that would engender positive feelings about us, and bring them on board. Even after that failed, Obama was (rather famously) promising them more flexibility after his re-election, and mocking Romney for claiming Russia was a threat.

W. Bush, Obama, and now Trump have all come into office thinking they can make sweet deals with Putin and get stuff done. For Bush, the realization this was false came in his second term. For Obama, it appears to have come after Hillary lost the election. I have no idea if there will be a point where it will come for Trump, but I would bet it would require a sense on his part that he'd been personally insulted or cut off.



Which is irrelevant, since the question is whether or not the POTUS has the authority to de or reclassify information at will. He does, and he can, and Presidents have regularly done so, for various reasons.



Exactly. The President is authorized to do with Classified Information whatever he deems to be in the interests of the United States.* If Trump decided we were better off with him impressing the Russians with how smart he was, and chose to share classified information in order to accomplish that - well, I think it's a moronic and dangerous decision, but it is also fully within his authority to do. If America doesn't like having a security risk for POTUS, then America shouldn't have put up two candidates who were both security risks for the office.


*with one notable exception having to do with initiating covert actions.



That's right, and that is also his prerogative.



Precedent is a legal question - there are plenty of precedents of US Presidents' of both parties declassifying information, including information that wasn't technically ours, but rather given to us by allies.

I hesitate to think you might be trying in the first statement to equate Politifact with Sean Hannerty because that would be laughable, i.e., dismissed by all but the few over there.

I continue to object to Trump closing to Americans his meeting in the Oval Office with the Russian ambassador and the Russian foreign minister, to include excluding American media. My objection includes that Trump allowed only Russian media and that the only photos Americans got of the closed meeting were from Russian media. Trump handed over the classified info during the closed meeting.

Obama removing the missile shield from Poland during the Iran negotiations did not include providing the Russians with classified information. Obama referring to relations with Russia after the 2012 election has no statement to it and no implication of providing Putin & Co. with classified information.

Obama and others before him discussing Stuxnet was an intimidation of Iran and its nuclear programs both civilian and any additional thoughts by the ayatollahs of military ones. That OB and others speaking before him let Tehran know Israel shared in Stuxnet made it a double-header sweep for the home team.

It is another whopper along the lines of your Politifact-Hannerty laffer to try to equate Trump and Clinton as security risks. In short, your post blows hard but moves nothing in the OP.

 

[Fledermaus]

I hesitate to think you might be trying in the first statement to equate Politifact with Sean Hannerty because that would be laughable, i.e., dismissed by all but the few over there.

I continue to object to Trump closing to Americans his meeting in the Oval Office with the Russian ambassador and the Russian foreign minister, to include excluding American media. My objection includes that Trump allowed only Russian media and that the only photos Americans got of the closed meeting were from Russian media. Trump handed over the classified info during the closed meeting.

Obama removing the missile shield from Poland during the Iran negotiations did not include providing the Russians with classified information. Obama referring to relations with Russia after the 2012 election has no statement to it and no implication of providing Putin & Co. with classified information.

Obama and others before him discussing Stuxnet was an intimidation of Iran and its nuclear programs both civilian and any additional thoughts by the ayatollahs of military ones. That OB and others speaking before him let Tehran know Israel shared in Stuxnet made it a double-header sweep for the home team.

It is another whopper along the lines of your Politifact-Hannerty laffer to try to equate Trump and Clinton as security risks. In short, your post blows hard but moves nothing in the OP.

Still no evidence of treason...

 

[Rich123]

I thought this was old news, and if I remember correct it came out after israel had no real issue with trump sharing the intel, and the intel shared was over isis which was also an enemy of russia and that russia was also fighting.

Add to that classified information can be declassified by the commander in chief, one of the few who have the authority to do so, so it seems people like you who hate trump can't even come up with new reasons to foam at the mouth and instead dig up old news hoping people forgot it was debunked.

Problem with your assertion is that this president didn't declassify anything, he (shared classified intelligence.) This intelligence happened to be the result of joints operations we had with Israel pertaining to their infiltration of Isis. Thus this put the lives of the infiltrators at risk. Trump didn't reveal this intelligence to the Russians to improve those operations, he did it to brag like a little girl. He revealed this information to the agents of a nation who by all accounts attacked us, therefore they are our enemy. This intel. wasn't declassified as you assert it was blabbed by a little boy patting himself on the back as usual. If it was declassified it would be available under the Freedom of Information Act to all those who are qualified to request it. It was available then and to my knowledge it still isn't. Trump actions was treasonous under the circumstances that they occurred. It wasn't to advance the security of our country ,it was to brag like the little pathetic juvenile he is.:2wave:

 

[apdst]

Problem with your assertion is that this president didn't declassify anything, he (shared classified intelligence.) This intelligence happened to be the result of joints operations we had with Israel pertaining to their infiltration of Isis. Thus this put the lives of the infiltrators at risk. Trump didn't reveal this intelligence to the Russians to improve those operations, he did it to brag like a little girl. He revealed this information to the agents of a nation who by all accounts attacked us, therefore they are our enemy. This intel. wasn't declassified as you assert it was blabbed by a little boy patting himself on the back as usual. If it was declassified it would be available under the Freedom of Information Act to all those who are qualified to request it. It was available then and to my knowledge it still isn't. Trump actions was treasonous under the circumstances that they occurred. It wasn't to advance the security of our country ,it was to brag like the little pathetic juvenile he is.:2wave:

Which is well within his authority.

 

[beerftw]

Problem with your assertion is that this president didn't declassify anything, he (shared classified intelligence.) This intelligence happened to be the result of joints operations we had with Israel pertaining to their infiltration of Isis. Thus this put the lives of the infiltrators at risk. Trump didn't reveal this intelligence to the Russians to improve those operations, he did it to brag like a little girl. He revealed this information to the agents of a nation who by all accounts attacked us, therefore they are our enemy. This intel. wasn't declassified as you assert it was blabbed by a little boy patting himself on the back as usual. If it was declassified it would be available under the Freedom of Information Act to all those who are qualified to request it. It was available then and to my knowledge it still isn't. Trump actions was treasonous under the circumstances that they occurred. It wasn't to advance the security of our country ,it was to brag like the little pathetic juvenile he is.:2wave:

When did by all accounts the attack us? Last time I checked russia has not attacked us nor have we attacked them, unless you consider facebook adds the same as invading a country.

Reguardless of what you think it was well within his power, especially to a country fighting the same enemy, and to a country that shares intel with us, yes if you did not know russia also shares intel with the united states, this is a common practice between countries when the intel is mutually beneficial.

 

[Tangmo]

As Trump HimSelf said, “Anyone fighting ISIS is our ally”

Yet, in another contradiction of Trump by the senior commanders of the armed forces, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said to Congress of Trump’s “anyone fighting ISIS is our ally” approach: “Chairman McCain, I do not believe it would be a good idea to share intelligence with the Russians.”


Recall Trump removed Gen. Dunford from the National Security Council and put Stephen Bannon is the seat of the chairman of the JCS. Yet, because of the strong reaction against it across the government and the society, Gen. Dunford was reinstated on the Council and Bannon removed.

Trump said in the campaign he'd "fire the generals," yet in September he successfully renominated Gen. Dunford for a second (and final) term as chairman JCS who was easily approved by vote of the Senate.

Trump hasn't fired any generals and he has in fact hired 'em and given 'em a reup. So, we can add to Trump's credentials of being an ignoramus moron idiot that he is a blowhard.

There is btw no question the toughest member of the JCS is Gen. Mark Milley, chief of staff of the Army who let Russia have it....




Trump said nothing.

 

[Superfly]

Manafort is charged with "Conspiracy Against the United States." Same for Manafort's gopher gofor Richard Gates.

That does the trick thx.

With investigations ongoing it could yet get worse for 'em all right up to the top.

Conspiracy. Treason. It's six of one and a half dozen of the other.

It's going to be a long cold winter. Followed by a long hot summer. Ending up behind high walls.

Yeah that's what I am hearing. That he is starting at the bottom, and hoping for people to spill their guts, the farther up they go.

Guess the **** is running uphill this time.

 

[Fledermaus]

As Trump HimSelf said, “Anyone fighting ISIS is our ally”

<Snipped irrelevant nonsense>

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

 

[Rich123]

When did by all accounts the attack us? Last time I checked russia has not attacked us nor have we attacked them, unless you consider facebook adds the same as invading a country.

Reguardless of what you think it was well within his power, especially to a country fighting the same enemy, and to a country that shares intel with us, yes if you did not know russia also shares intel with the united states, this is a common practice between countries when the intel is mutually beneficial.

According to all our intelligence agencies America was attacked by hacking into both the DNC AND THE RNC and by attempting to affect the results of our election. It is further agreed by those intllegence agencies that is was Russian governmental actors who launched the attack and may have colluded with Americans. Yes we do share intel with the Russian government for our mutual national/s safety. Trump got nothing out of his revealing that Israeli infiltrators, infiltrated Isis. He didn't get anything because he didn't ask for anything. He just wanted to show how important he is to the two Russian agents and he also thought the U.S. media could never find out. But he did compromise the mission and endangered the lives of the infiltrators and furthermore made it less likely our allies will share highly classified intelligence with us in the further knowing that we have a child president. But you are absolutely right that a president has the authority to share intelligence even highly classified intelligence with whom ever he chooses and for what ever reason he chooses. Even if it's just to impress our enemies with how important the great Donald Trump is.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

THIS IS WHAT TREASON LOOKS LIKES





But just pretend you never seen that!

 

[RAMOSS]

I thought this was old news, and if I remember correct it came out after israel had no real issue with trump sharing the intel, and the intel shared was over isis which was also an enemy of russia and that russia was also fighting.

Add to that classified information can be declassified by the commander in chief, one of the few who have the authority to do so, so it seems people like you who hate trump can't even come up with new reasons to foam at the mouth and instead dig up old news hoping people forgot it was debunked.

Actually, it was in May, and yes, Israel did have objections..

 

[Tangmo]

Nobody is doing as badly at countering Russian cyberwarfare against the United States than Donald Trump...


Experts: US Must Project Cyber Warfare Capabilities to Deter Attacks

12 May 2017

The United States must demonstrate its cyber warfare capabilities to help deter sophisticated attacks from Russia while building strategies on a battlefield still misunderstood by commanders and senior officials, a panel of defense experts told lawmakers Thursday.

"Cyber operations are a legitimate means of projecting national power, especially when proportionately supplemented by kinetic force," retired Navy Adm. James Stavridis, the former leader of European Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. Stavridis is dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Boston.

Russia, North Korea, China and other nations launch sophisticated attacks against the United States, including attempts to destroy infrastructure and undermine credibility of elections in America and France, Stavridis said. And the United States is often sheepish to strike back in shows of force, he added.

Retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA, said outdated thinking still suggests cyber assaults require an in-kind digital response, when other measures, such as conventional military strikes or sanctions, might be more appropriate.

In response to Russian election interference for example, the United States could have revealed the extent of President Vladimir Putin's finances and property, Stavridis said. Recent protests have rocked Russia and overt jabs over the wealth of Russian leaders and oligarchs would undermine the government there, he said. Crippling intelligence-gathering networks would also restrict Putin's ability to surveil his own people, Hayden said, at a crucial time when he seeks to squash dissent.

Experts: US Must Project Cyber Warfare Capabilities to Deter Attacks | Military.com



U.S. needs to reveal and expose Putin's corrupt wealth and Trump needs to reveal or have exposed his corrupt wealth. Find out the nexus.

The U.S. is not doing what it needs to do. The reasons of the failure are not exactly clear. What we do know is that Putin and Trump and the Putin-Trump Fanboyz deny it all. What I do know is that I like and approve of the charge in the 12-court indictment of Paul Manafort, "Conspiracy Against the United States." Sounds right to me.

Indeed, Michael Flynn was getting fees in Moscow sitting at the right hand of Putin celebrating Putin's propaganda apparatus RT while Trump was in USA saying U.S. media are "the enemy of the people."

 

[Tangmo]

Which is well within his authority.

It is an abuse of authority by a sleazebag we neither believe nor trust.

It is the Putin-Trump Pact supported, defended and advocated by the Putin-Trump Fanboyz.

Both Trump and the rightwing military veterans recite their oath then they dismiss it, ignore it, violate it.

 

[Fledermaus]

Nobody is doing as badly at countering Russian cyberwarfare against the United States than Donald Trump...


Experts: US Must Project Cyber Warfare Capabilities to Deter Attacks

12 May 2017

The United States must demonstrate its cyber warfare capabilities to help deter sophisticated attacks from Russia while building strategies on a battlefield still misunderstood by commanders and senior officials, a panel of defense experts told lawmakers Thursday.

"Cyber operations are a legitimate means of projecting national power, especially when proportionately supplemented by kinetic force," retired Navy Adm. James Stavridis, the former leader of European Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. Stavridis is dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Boston.

Russia, North Korea, China and other nations launch sophisticated attacks against the United States, including attempts to destroy infrastructure and undermine credibility of elections in America and France, Stavridis said. And the United States is often sheepish to strike back in shows of force, he added.

Retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA, said outdated thinking still suggests cyber assaults require an in-kind digital response, when other measures, such as conventional military strikes or sanctions, might be more appropriate.

In response to Russian election interference for example, the United States could have revealed the extent of President Vladimir Putin's finances and property, Stavridis said. Recent protests have rocked Russia and overt jabs over the wealth of Russian leaders and oligarchs would undermine the government there, he said. Crippling intelligence-gathering networks would also restrict Putin's ability to surveil his own people, Hayden said, at a crucial time when he seeks to squash dissent.

Experts: US Must Project Cyber Warfare Capabilities to Deter Attacks | Military.com



U.S. needs to reveal and expose Putin's corrupt wealth and Trump needs to reveal or have exposed his corrupt wealth. Find out the nexus.

The U.S. is not doing what it needs to do. The reasons of the failure are not exactly clear. What we do know is that Putin and Trump and the Putin-Trump Fanboyz deny it all. What I do know is that I like and approve of the charge in the 12-court indictment of Paul Manafort, "Conspiracy Against the United States." Sounds right to me.

Indeed, Michael Flynn was getting fees in Moscow sitting at the right hand of Putin celebrating Putin's propaganda apparatus RT while Trump was in USA saying U.S. media are "the enemy of the people."

You said you studied Treason?

You must have missed this part.

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

How does the OP fit that bill?

 

[Somerville]

Why don't people bother to read their own posts? Or is it, unfortunately, true that some can only see what they wish to see.

Once again into the breach: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Stop ignoring that Aid and Comfort bit.

What Trump did by giving the Russians information on Israeli operations in Syria could be seen as giving them "Aid and Comfort". Now I don't actually view his actions as being Treason but they certainly were Stupid. Stupidity seems to be an innate characteristic of the Trump persona. Maybe that's why so many like him, he comes off as being no smarter than they are when it comes to international relations.

 

[Fletch]

Why don't people bother to read their own posts? Or is it, unfortunately, true that some can only see what they wish to see.

Once again into the breach: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Stop ignoring that Aid and Comfort bit.

What Trump did by giving the Russians information on Israeli operations in Syria could be seen as giving them "Aid and Comfort". Now I don't actually view his actions as being Treason but they certainly were Stupid. Stupidity seems to be an innate characteristic of the Trump persona. Maybe that's why so many like him, he comes off as being no smarter than they are when it comes to international relations.

Not sure what your point is. You list what you see as 'aid and comfort' then claim it is not aid and comfort. Make up your mind and post coherently before questioning the intelligence of others. :roll:

 

[Somerville]

Not sure what your point is. You list what you see as 'aid and comfort' then claim it is not aid and comfort. Make up your mind and post coherently before questioning the intelligence of others. :roll:

Not sure what your point is, but you certainly are showing us a seeming inability to comprehend simple words and phrases; e.g. "could be seen as" and "I don't actually view".

I am not a lawyer but I have had to deal with them in the past and learned that words can be used in ways which cause a non-lawyer person to understand them as saying one thing but which in the legal world as stating something altogether different from what may be seen as "common understanding".

I am saying that I don't see Trump's behaviour as Treason but that such actions as revealing top secret information to a foreign entity could possibly be seen as Treason by a court. What is so difficult to understand? I am saying I am not an expert on the matter and therefore there could be another opinion from those who know more about the matter.

 

[Fledermaus]

Not sure what your point is, but you certainly are showing us a seeming inability to comprehend simple words and phrases; e.g. "could be seen as" and "I don't actually view".

I am not a lawyer but I have had to deal with them in the past and learned that words can be used in ways which cause a non-lawyer person to understand them as saying one thing but which in the legal world as stating something altogether different from what may be seen as "common understanding".

I am saying that I don't see Trump's behaviour as Treason but that such actions as revealing top secret information to a foreign entity could possibly be seen as Treason by a court. What is so difficult to understand? I am saying I am not an expert on the matter and therefore there could be another opinion from those who know more about the matter.

How exactly would it be seen as Treason?

Are we at war with Russia and nobody noticed?

 

[apdst]

It is an abuse of authority by a sleazebag we neither believe nor trust.

It is the Putin-Trump Pact supported, defended and advocated by the Putin-Trump Fanboyz.

Both Trump and the rightwing military veterans recite their oath then they dismiss it, ignore it, violate it.

It's nothing different that presidents have been doing since WW2. Nothing was abused. You people are just pissed off because he won and Ckinton lost, so you all are dreaming up every chicken**** excuse to claim President Trump broke the law.

The sad part, is that y'all aren't even smart enough to just claim that it was a stupid thing to do and then tell us why it's a stupid idea.

 

[Somerville]

It's nothing different that presidents have been doing since WW2. Nothing was abused. You people are just pissed off because he won and Ckinton lost, so you all are dreaming up every chicken**** excuse to claim President Trump broke the law.

The sad part, is that y'all aren't even smart enough to just claim that it was a stupid thing to do and then tell us why it's a stupid idea.

Providing confidential information to a third party without the consent of the source is a "stupid thing to do."

Providing confidential information to said 'third party' has the potential of causing harm to the intelligence operation and operatives of the source, particularly when the 'third party' is an ally of an enemy of the original source.

I believe others have already noted this "stupid thing" but it is rather evident that some refuse to accept knowledge which tends to contradict tightly-held beliefs.

 

[apdst]

Providing confidential information to a third party without the consent of the source is a "stupid thing to do."

Providing confidential information to said 'third party' has the potential of causing harm to the intelligence operation and operatives of the source, particularly when the 'third party' is an ally of an enemy of the original source.

I believe others have already noted this "stupid thing" but it is rather evident that some refuse to accept knowledge which tends to contradict tightly-held beliefs.

That logic, alone, doesn't make it stupid. What's stupid is announcing to the entire world what was discussed in a classified setting. Now, the enemy knows what was discussed and who has the information. The asshole that leaked the the meeting's conversation is the real criminal. But of course, y'all don't care how you get dirt on President Trump.

 

[Somerville]

That logic, alone, doesn't make it stupid. What's stupid is announcing to the entire world what was discussed in a classified setting. Now, the enemy knows what was discussed and who has the information. The asshole that leaked the the meeting's conversation is the real criminal. But of course, y'all don't care how you get dirt on President Trump.

Your opinion. I disagree.