"Treason"

[lurchadams]

I think the traitor card is a little overplayed. I get that Trump has attacked our traditional allies, attacked long standing organizations like the UN and NATO, and has cozied up to our traditional enemies, the tyrannical communists and Russia. I can see why people are wary and some are feeling betrayed by Trump. I think that it is perhaps a little tougher to go all out and actually call it treason. I mean, it is fun to see the reactions of the Trumpeteers to it, and his Russia First policies are disconcerting. I think it would take something a bit more intentional on the part of Trump and I don't know if he's actively working to destabilize our alliances and weaken NATO while bolstering Russia, or if he's just being trolled and tricked by Putin into it.

Russia just attacked us and plans to do it again. Trump is committing treason.

 

[vesper]

That is a perfectly legitimate feeling to have. I have the same feelings with regard to President Obama vis-a-vis trying to engage in an abortive hard reset of Russian-American relations, scrapping our country's plans for a missile defense shield over Poland and the Czech Republic, and pursuing a policy of empowerment of the Iranian regime through the Iran nuclear deal.

However, I would like to ask: Other than pouring disconcerting amounts of praise upon Putin and scorn and dismissiveness upon our allies and trading partners, what concrete actions has Trump and his administration actually taken that have damaged U.S. interests and benefited Russia?

Felis Leo, that was a great post.

I believe it was Obama's former CIA director John Brennan that used the word "treason" first. What I find disconcerting is to see two of Obama's Intel directors, Brennan and Clapper turned political hack commentators undermining this presidency with Brennan working for MSNBC and Clapper for CNN. Two of the biggest anti-Trump networks. I can't recall ever a former intel director of a previous administration becoming a political pundit to undermine the following administration. That to me is very disturbing.

 

[Master PO]

:lamo:lamo:lamo....

 

[Linc]

Russia just attacked us and plans to do it again. Trump is committing treason.

Secret agreements by #45 with the Soviets in Syria to be implemented immediately, according to our 6th Military Branch. Not the space force yet, the Soviet Communists.

 

[Vox]

It's not inconceivable that trump may actually be charged with crimes at some point in the future (though that would be tricky at best so long as he's in office). It's just that treason will not be one of those crimes.

Since "it's not inconceivable that /any politician now in office/ may actually be charged with crimes at some point in the future"........

Your statement is sort of irrelevant and amusing.

 

[VanceMack]

Anyone remember back during the 2012 elections at one of the presidential debates Romney said Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat? He was thumbed by every loony lefty in the country, including the Chief Loony BHO. Now those same loonies seem to have a "Russia, Russia, Russia" obsession bordering on maniacal. Why do I get the feeling if BHO had done something similar to Trump's Helsinki performance they'd be nominating him for another Nobel?

Recent history has clearly proved that the leftists in the DNC know hat they can pull whatever strings they want and make the mindless leftists muppets dance. Its sad. More so because its so true.
2012...when it was conveeenient....


And it wasnt just Obama...it was a concerted effort between the DNC and the media using a script. And the mindless muppets swallowed it and begged for seconds.

And they got it in 2016...



And the reason was obvious...avoid answering the content....



and the reality is it worked.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It's more than a little disheartening that so many now view political disagreement as "betrayal" or "an attack" or "treason". Half the country disagreed with Barack Obama's politics yet you never saw anything close to this level of animosity.

Oh really?
Now, you're just begging to get piled on.
Please, admit that you're maybe sugar coating a wee bit WRT "animosity toward Obama".

 

[gulfman]

I wonder if Trump had sold Russia uranium like the Clintons did would the liberals be just as warm and cuddly about it.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

To the contrary, since Russia is not engaged in armed conflict against the U.S., then they are not an “enemy” under the Constitutional provision for treason.

A salient point made by the author of the law review article was that the word “enemy” in the treason provision of the Constitution is in reference to a foreign power engaged in an armed conflict against the U.S.

Russia may be an enemy in some other sense, but is not an enemy under the treason provision of the Constitution.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, I don't know; there's likely a very good argument to make the cyber-warfare is essentially the equivalent of armed conflict.

It's never been tested in the courts before, but I see a good chance the the courts would uphold it.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I wonder if Trump had sold Russia uranium like the Clintons did would the liberals be just as warm and cuddly about it.

When did the Clintons do that?

 

[lurchadams]

Secret agreements by #45 with the Soviets in Syria to be implemented immediately, according to our 6th Military Branch. Not the space force yet, the Soviet Communists.

Ouch!

 

[Linc]

Oh really?
Now, you're just begging to get piled on.
Please, admit that you're maybe sugar coating a wee bit WRT "animosity toward Obama".

And now the Kushner/Secret Service scandal

 

[Howard the Duck]

I wonder if Trump had sold Russia uranium like the Clintons did would the liberals be just as warm and cuddly about it.

The Clintons didn't sell any uranium. You are mistaken.

 

[dobieg]

Delusional nuttery. Disagreeing with policy decisions is nothing close to this.


He outright accused our own intelligence community of lying, while trusting the word of our enemy and known liar Putin.

So you didn't question our intelligence community when they said Iraq had WMD's?


And if you did, would that make you a traitor?

 

[Howard the Duck]

Ouch!

That's going to leave a mark.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

When did the Clintons do that?

It's another "Lie that will not die", like "Hitler was a liberal".
When Trump cult members get cornered, they resort to babbling in propaganda.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So you didn't question our intelligence community when they said Iraq had WMD's?


And if you did, would that make you a traitor?

Excuse me, that was cherry-picked BUSH intelligence, which a good many in the intel community did not agree with, and a good many in the intel community were pressured, or even FIRED, when they voiced disagreements with it, thank you.

In fact, it was mostly a product of one of the PRIME ARCHITECTS of the Iraq War, chickenhawk John Bolton.

 

[dobieg]

Excuse me, that was cherry-picked BUSH intelligence, which a good many in the intel community did not agree with, and a good many in the intel community were pressured, or even FIRED, when they voiced disagreements with it, thank you.

In fact, it was mostly a product of one of the PRIME ARCHITECTS of the Iraq War, chickenhawk John Bolton.

I can recall many liberals and a good number of conservatives who had little trust for our intelligence community at the time because the information could be manipulated and'or senior intelligence officials didn't have a spine.


It's just amusing watching today as all of a sudden the Left is treating our Intelligence community as some sort of revered institutions above reproach whom should never be questioned.

 

[Tennyson]

To understand Article III's treason clause, an understanding of the medieval era and the Bible are necessary. There are two components of the treason clause and one is word for word from King Edward’s Treason Act of 1351. The other is from King Edward VI's Treason Act of 1547, which is based on the Bible's two witnesses.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I can recall many liberals and a good number of conservatives who had little trust for our intelligence community at the time because the information could be manipulated and'or senior intelligence officials didn't have a spine.


It's just amusing watching today as all of a sudden the Left is treating our Intelligence community as some sort of revered institutions above reproach whom should never be questioned.

I wasn't there while you had hallucinations about the war. So, if you believe that many liberals and a good number of conservatives had little trust for our intel community, that's on you. At the runup to the Iraq War, I saw liberals opposed to the war, and pointing out pressured cherry picked intel, much of which was written BY Chickenkawk Bolton and his team, and intel dissenters purged from the ranks.

Likewise, if you believe you are currently seeing the Left "treating our Intelligence community as some sort of revered institutions above reproach whom should never be questioned", again, that is on you.
I do not harbor illusions about the intel community but I know that most of them are career professionals who have served more than one administration, and I know that they do a job.
I also know that if a tyrant pisses on them too many times, eventually they piss back.

Make of that what you wish, but don't pretend that your nonsense speaks for anyone but yourself.

 

[DiAnna]

Too late?

What crippling trouble do you think could befall us?

Well, it was discovered last year that Russia had hacked US power grids, to the point they had the ability to black out the entire country with a few keyboard clicks. Do you think the country going black, traffic control centers going dead, every computer in the country, including in congress, the WH, the Pentagon being fried, might just cause "crippling trouble"?

The WH response? *crickets* The response from cabinet members like Dan Coats when asked during congressional hearings what direction Trump had given toward responding to Russians cyber-attacks? "None, Mr. Chairman."

I frankly don't understand why people think it's all so amusing that anyone is actually bothered by the evidence of what Russia has set itself up to do to us, while the "leader of the free world" doesn't even ask those in charge of national security to draw up a plan to stop it.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Well, it was discovered last year that Russia had hacked US power grids, to the point they had the ability to black out the entire country with a few keyboard clicks. Do you think the country going black, traffic control centers going dead, every computer in the country, including in congress, the WH, the Pentagon being fried, might just cause "crippling trouble"?

The WH response? *crickets* The response from cabinet members like Dan Coats when asked during congressional hearings what direction Trump had given toward responding to Russians cyber-attacks? "None, Mr. Chairman."

I frankly don't understand why people think it's all so amusing that anyone is actually bothered by the evidence of what Russia has set itself up to do to us, while the "leader of the free world" doesn't even ask those in charge of national security to draw up a plan to stop it.

The reason you heard "crickets" from the White House is because it was basically a non-story.

You hear the word "hacked" and you immediately see a disaster, and while hacking isn't good, it also isn't news and it should be handled on an individual IS basis.

For example:

Hackers infiltrated the Department of Energy’s computer system over 150 times between 2010 and 2014, according to federal documents obtained by USA Today.

The records — received through a Freedom of Information Act request — reveal a blanket of digital attacks the agency has been struggling to thwart for years. In total, hackers targeted DOE networks 1,131 times over the four-year span, successfully cracking the network 159 times.

Energy Dept. hacked 150 times in 4 years | TheHill

And we all heard "crickets" from the White House then as well.

Why?

Because, although cyber security is an ongoing issue, attacks are coming fast and heavy and they're coming from everywhere. It's a simple matter to spoof your IP so it appears to be coming from Russia, China or Australia, when in reality it could be coming from everywhere.

The answer is to keep one step ahead of the hackers -- and they're everywhere -- including here in the US.

The biggest "recent" hack came from Iran -- and you likely known nothing about it -- since all you're looking for is Russian attacks. Cybersecurity is big business and what we've seen from Russia, in comparison to what we've seen from our own people and others is miniscule.
Massive cyberhack by Iran allegedly stole research from 320 universities, governments, and companies | Science | AAAS

And, don't forget that we lead the way in cyber attacks against other countries. Remember Stuxnet? If we don't stop cyber-attacking other nations, can we really expect them not to cyber attack us?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...attack-against-iran-went-well-beyond-stuxnet/

 

[jnug]

The reason you heard "crickets" from the White House is because it was basically a non-story.

You hear the word "hacked" and you immediately see a disaster, and while hacking isn't good, it also isn't news and it should be handled on an individual IS basis.

For example:


Energy Dept. hacked 150 times in 4 years | TheHill

And we all heard "crickets" from the White House then as well.

Why?

Because, although cyber security is an ongoing issue, attacks are coming fast and heavy and they're coming from everywhere. It's a simple matter to spoof your IP so it appears to be coming from Russia, China or Australia, when in reality it could be coming from everywhere.

The answer is to keep one step ahead of the hackers -- and they're everywhere -- including here in the US.

The biggest "recent" hack came from Iran -- and you likely known nothing about it -- since all you're looking for is Russian attacks. Cybersecurity is big business and what we've seen from Russia, in comparison to what we've seen from our own people and others is miniscule.
Massive cyberhack by Iran allegedly stole research from 320 universities, governments, and companies | Science | AAAS

And, don't forget that we lead the way in cyber attacks against other countries. Remember Stuxnet? If we don't stop cyber-attacking other nations, can we really expect them not to cyber attack us?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...attack-against-iran-went-well-beyond-stuxnet/

Are you here in the US?

 

[HowardBThiname]

Are you here in the US?

Yes.

Why?

 

[NotreDame]

Oh, I don't know; there's likely a very good argument to make the cyber-warfare is essentially the equivalent of armed conflict.

It's never been tested in the courts before, but I see a good chance the the courts would uphold it.

In certain contexts some kinds of cyber-warfare may be akin to, tantamount to (virtually the same as) an armed conflict with a foreign power. It’s doubtful the number and kind of cyber attacks by Russia towards entities in the U.S. is akin or tantamount to an armed conflict, when one considers the features of an armed conflict.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk