We have a tratior in the White House

[cpwill]

Huh? We're not talking about standing up to dictators. We're talking about a nation whose military personnel were caught hacking into computers to affect an election.

The U.S. has supported coups and assassination in the past. Does that mean we should be fine with Russia or some other country doing the same to us? Wasn't that your justification for ignoring the Russian military hacking to attack an American political candidate?

:raises eyebrow: I was one of the ones who, back in the winter of 2016/early 2017, spent a good bit of time arguing with Trump fans that it had occurred. We should have been giving what-for to Russia (and China) for this kind of behavior for the better part of a decade.

But none of ya'll cared until all of a sudden you came to the conclusion (unwilling to dwell on just how truly awful a candidate Hillary was) that it may have cost the Democrat Party something. Nobody cared when it was only the country being harmed - once it was your political tribe.... oh, NOW suddenly we're up in arms about treason :roll:

 

[SoCal]

:raises eyebrow: I was one of the ones who, back in the winter of 2016/early 2017, spent a good bit of time arguing with Trump fans that it had occurred. We should have been giving what-for to Russia (and China) for this kind of behavior for the better part of a decade.

But none of ya'll cared until all of a sudden you came to the conclusion (unwilling to dwell on just how truly awful a candidate Hillary was) that it may have cost the Democrat Party something. Nobody cared when it was only the country being harmed - once it was your political tribe.... oh, NOW suddenly we're up in arms about treason :roll:

The NY Times just revealed that Trump was briefed by our intelligence agencies that Putin personally ordered the attack on our election with the intent to elect TRUMP while he was President-Elect.

So he's known for over a year that there was no 400 pound guy on a bed or the "other people" he just mentioned again today.

But maybe you should stop warning the country now that Trump is in office, people might care...

 

[ultmd]

Like I said, nothing Trump has done is remotely close to treason and, as I laid out in another post, he has taken actions which are directly against Russian interests in several cases. This is just more hysterics from the hate Trump crowd, nothing more. As for Putin, I do not support Putin, I do not trust Putin and I do not view Putin as an ally. I can hold those positions and not be a Trump hater. I know that might sound remarkable to you, but there it is.

And as I said, the rantings of the Trump acolytes are as anti-American as they are nonsensical. Your blind support for Trump is indicative of the fact that Putin's disinformation campaign aimed at 3 core groups of the American Right (i.e. Evangelical/Christian conservatives, radical gun rights advocates, and White Nationalists) has been WILDLY successful. Of course you support Putin. You just don't know it, or won't admit it. And that puts you in company with about 40% of your fellow right wingers.

I also find it heartily amusing to see the party who was the Bolsheviks' best buddies for 60+ years now waxing eloquent in their love of country and hatred of Russia. I remember back in the 80's when they attacked Reagan and said he'd start a war and were saying he was too tough on the poor Russkies. Now, many of these same people have switched gears 180 degrees because the Bolsheviks are gone (in name anyway) and Trump is President.

:lamo Another empty-headed, non-sequitur. The above quote is just more deflection because you cannot rebut the FACTS laid out in my previous remarks. And you know it. It's no small coincidence that almost every new argument you propose is built/based upon some kind of ridiculous, empty-headed, right-wing, alt-right blog-inspired talking point (i.e. lie). About the only logical analogy I can offer you, after that idiotic opinion, is this: If the Democrats were the "Bolsheviks' best buddies for 60+ years........then the Republicans have been the Nazis' and Fascists' best buds during those years, as well. Not many rational Americans would express the views you espouse on this board.

I'll say again, the ONLY good thing for American that has come from the rise of Trumpism..........is that we can forever put to rest any notion of far-right nationalism being based on patriotism, love-of-country, Christian values and "small government" conservatism. They are all, at their cores, mostly just angry white nationalists who HIDE behind a contrived set of "values" (i.e. patriotism, conservative/Christian morals, small government) in order to prey on those gullible factions of the American public.

 

[ultmd]

I think you need to expand your reading of treason and the Constitution, your reasoning's are tinted by bias. Nothing has been done that rises to the level of treason according to the constitution.

"Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution: any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given."

The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason."

Was what he said a smart thing to say? absolutely not, but not treasonous. I am certain he will rue those words.

Perhaps YOU need to go back an re-read my previous remarks on Artical III of the Constitution, instead.

It's open to debate as to whether Trump's disgraceful actions and behavior with Putin/Russia meet the definition of "aid and comfort". We know that he has disclosed classified information to them, dating back to the infamous Oval Office meeting with the Russian Ambassador, last year. But that wasn't my point.

My point was to note that it is an OPEN DEBATE among legal scholars RIGHT NOW, as to whether, or not, to classify cyber attacks upon America's infrastructure as an "act of war". Many experts argue...RIGHT NOW....that a cyber attack that destroys or impacts the integrity of any critical infrastructure is effectively no different than if a bomb were dropped or planted by a foreign national on U.S. soil to destroy that infrastructure. For example, if Russia used cyber attacks to render the U.S. power grid inoperable, that would be no different than if they'd physically destroyed them in a conventional act of war. The argument is that, either way, an act of war has been committed.

That's the same argument used now, by many legal experts, for any potential cyber attacks that impact the outcome of U.S. elections. That's why the "time of war" phrase is being debated. And it's an open, unanswered question within our legal system right now. Valid, persuasive arguments exist on both sides of this vigorous debate.

So again, re-read my previous remarks.

 

[Howard the Duck]

Perhaps YOU need to go back an re-read my previous remarks on Artical III of the Constitution, instead.

It's open to debate as to whether Trump's disgraceful actions and behavior with Putin/Russia meet the definition of "aid and comfort". We know that he has disclosed classified information to them, dating back to the infamous Oval Office meeting with the Russian Ambassador, last year. But that wasn't my point.

My point was to note that it is an OPEN DEBATE among legal scholars RIGHT NOW, as to whether, or not, to classify cyber attacks upon America's infrastructure as an "act of war". Many experts argue...RIGHT NOW....that a cyber attack that destroys or impacts the integrity of any critical infrastructure is effectively no different than if a bomb were dropped or planted by a foreign national on U.S. soil to destroy that infrastructure. For example, if Russia used cyber attacks to render the U.S. power grid inoperable, that would be no different than if they'd physically destroyed them in a conventional act of war. The argument is that, either way, an act of war has been committed.

That's the same argument used now, by many legal experts, for any potential cyber attacks that impact the outcome of U.S. elections. That's why the "time of war" phrase is being debated. And it's an open, unanswered question within our legal system right now. Valid, persuasive arguments exist on both sides of this vigorous debate.

So again, re-read my previous remarks.

Cyber attacks? They were cyber attacks by the RUSSIAN MILITARY.

 

[SoCal]

Perhaps YOU need to go back an re-read my previous remarks on Artical III of the Constitution, instead.

It's open to debate as to whether Trump's disgraceful actions and behavior with Putin/Russia meet the definition of "aid and comfort". We know that he has disclosed classified information to them, dating back to the infamous Oval Office meeting with the Russian Ambassador, last year. But that wasn't my point.

My point was to note that it is an OPEN DEBATE among legal scholars RIGHT NOW, as to whether, or not, to classify cyber attacks upon America's infrastructure as an "act of war". Many experts argue...RIGHT NOW....that a cyber attack that destroys or impacts the integrity of any critical infrastructure is effectively no different than if a bomb were dropped or planted by a foreign national on U.S. soil to destroy that infrastructure. For example, if Russia used cyber attacks to render the U.S. power grid inoperable, that would be no different than if they'd physically destroyed them in a conventional act of war. The argument is that, either way, an act of war has been committed.

That's the same argument used now, by many legal experts, for any potential cyber attacks that impact the outcome of U.S. elections. That's why the "time of war" phrase is being debated. And it's an open, unanswered question within our legal system right now. Valid, persuasive arguments exist on both sides of this vigorous debate.

So again, re-read my previous remarks.

This was the Pentagon's take 7 years ago...


"For the first time, the Pentagon has decided that cyber attacks constitute an act of war, reports The Wall Street Journal. The U.S. military drafted a classified 30-page document concluding that the U.S. may respond to cyber attacks from foreign countries with traditional military force, citing the growing threat of hackers on U.S. infrastructure such as subways, electrical grids or nuclear reactors. "If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks," a military official told the Journal. While some say the policy is in keeping with the times, others worry that it could lead the country into war more easily..."

 

[Sabre]

Bottom line is we have a Spy vs Spy world out there. There is nothing new about hacking, our allies have done it to us as well as our "frienamies" and our adversaries - and we have done and will do the same to all of them.

No hacking has ever changed the outcome of a presidential election and several have been hacked into. Prior to the 2016 election, President Obama privately confronted Vladimir Putin about the hacks at the G-20 summit in China. Key word, privately, no one to him to task for not making a public denouncement of Putin and Russia.

They knew about the hacks but, according to NBC News, "The Obama administration didn’t respond more forcefully to Russian hacking before the presidential election because they didn’t want to appear to be interfering in the election and they thought that Hillary Clinton was going to win and a potential cyber war with Russia wasn’t worth it", "They thought she was going to win, so they were willing to kick the can down the road"

That was then, democrats were in power with total support from the media but, now they are out and republicans are in power so the claws come out. When the time comes that they regain a position of power they will cease all the brouhaha and the media will go silent.