Treason

[sheshe2]

by Liberal Librarian

snip

President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter.

For almost three years, Trump has been telling everyone that he believed Russian president Vladimir Putin when he said he didn’t interfere in the 2016 election. Of course, we all knew that was a lie. But here the lie is laid bare, with unconcealed contempt.

You can call this nothing other than treason. We have to face up to the fact that we are in an undeclared war with Russia. Putin is using all of his skulduggery to subvert the West. He began with Britain in the Brexit referendum. He tested his wares out with Ukraine in 2014. And then he scored the trifecta in the election which installed Donald Trump in the White House. Given these facts, Trump is nothing but a traitor. And those who aid and abet him are likewise traitors.

Read More: https://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2019/9/27/treason

[ffr]

1. Down the line, treason.

[BigmanPigman]

12. "You know what they used to do with traitors, don't you?".

Famous last words...he'll hang himself in the end.

[homegirl]

43. Several months ago

Speaker Pelosi did say Donald would impeach himself. She sure called it!

[NCLefty]

2. And Republicans now view Russia much more favorably than before Trump. That might be

the worst thing of all. How the hell are we going to fight them if half of the government doesn't care so much to anymore?

[guillaumeb]

3. Recommended.

Treason as a result of a truly unintelligent sociopath who is concerned only with his own financial well being.

And many in the GOP are also compromised by Russian money, but the US corporate controlled media cannot admit this.

[Newest Reality]

4. We are getting it in both ends ;)

On one hand, his policies and appointments, (and tax break) are giving the country away to the Oligarchs, and gee, like they really need more and inequity is just fine and dandy and long live the wealthy! We are already showing many signs of a 3rd-world country, (just look into it) and it is not a matter of over-exaggerating or political posturing to say that.

On the other hand, he is selling us out to foreign powers externally, compromising our national security and leaving the doors open rather than guarding them. The fox is certainly in charge of the hen house and there go the eggs and the hens, one by one. Poof!

The more I think about this, the worse it looks. Oh, it looked pretty bad before, but now it is a coming apart at the seams affair. If I am correct, this is a two-pronged approach from within and without.

When he won the election, my first words to a friend were: That's the person you elect when you want to destroy a country.

He has to be reigned in. This is no longer really just a partisan issue, no matter how it is spun. It is really critical and so the impeachment inquiry is just in time. It may not stop him, but it puts a lot more attention and pressure on his tactics. He needs a big kick in his delusional sense of impunity, stat!

[KPN]

8. I agree re: "just in time". We are fortunate a

whistle-blower with cred and gravitas finally came forward. We may otherwise have still been whistling past the graveyard

[panfluteman]

18. That's the person you elect when you want to destroy a country...

Brilliant! Couldn't have said it any better myself. In fact, I believe I was thinking precisely that in the wake of the disastrous 2016 election. Putin elected not only a traitor, but a ticking time bomb which, one way or another would do its inevitable demolition work on the US - and many say that this process was speeded up by covert manipulation and misleading stroking of Trump's huge ego by Putin.

But for the typical low information voter and Fox News viewer who had not done their pre-election homework on the Real Donald Trump, they simply fell for the image, the myth, the big deception - that Trump was a great manager and negotiator, and that he really loved his country simply because he hugged the flag up on stage.

[AZ8theist]

40. EXACTLY..

I remember during the campaign they interviewed some fucking imbecile supporter in Ohio who thought Doturd was "an excellent business man"...

You can't fix stupid.

[lastlib]

44. My only quibble is with your phrase "Putin elected...a traitor..."

He wasn't elected--he was *installed*. Semantics, but important.

[erronis]

34. Great post. Thanks for putting some of my thoughts into words.

[Newest Reality]

35. Thanks!

I am glad you concur and appreciate the acknowledgement.

[dalton99a]

5. Trump also invited Russia to interfere in other countries' elections

White House officials were particularly distressed by Trump’s election remarks because it appeared the president was forgiving Russia for an attack that had been designed to help elect him, the three former officials said. Trump also seemed to invite Russia to interfere in other countries’ elections, they said.

According to the fourth former official, Trump lamented to Lavrov that “all this Russia stuff” was detrimental to good relations. Trump also complained, “I could have a great relationship with you guys, but you know, our press,” this former official said, characterizing the president’s remarks.

H.R. McMaster, the president’s then-national security adviser, repeatedly told Trump he could not trust the Russians, according to two former officials.

“What was difficult to understand was how they got a free pass on a lot of things — election security and so forth,” this former official said. “He was just very accommodating to them.”

The former official observed that Trump has “that streak of moral equivalency,” recalling how he once dismissed a question about the assassination of journalists and dissidents in Putin’s Russia by telling Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly, “There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?”

One former senior official said Trump regularly defended Russia’s actions, even in private, saying no country is pure. “He was always defensive of Russia,” this person said, adding the president had never made such a specific remark about interference in their presence.

“He thought the whole interference thing was ridiculous. He never bought into it.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-told-russian-officials-in-2017-he-wasnt-concerned-about-moscows-interference-in-us-election/2019/09/27/b20a8bc8-e159-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

[TwilightZone]

6. Treason is a very difficult bar to meet.

The problem is that the legal standard involves being actively at war with someone. We don't currently meet that standard. Contrary to what many assert, including the author, we're not officially at war with Russia.

"Undeclared" doesn't qualify. For example, the Cold War wasn't enough of a war to qualify, so the Rosenbergs didn't meet the standard. Neither did John Walker Lindh, though his situation arguably involved a real war. The government chose not to attempt to charge him with treason because the bar is so high. If neither of those situations qualifies as treason, Trump probably doesn't, either.

A couple of articles about the topic:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-doesn-t-understand-what-treason-means-n1009636

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/americans-have-forgotten-what-treason-actually-means-how-it-can-ncna848651

[KPN]

10. Difficult but not impossible. To not pursue accountability to the greatest

possible degree would be dereliction of duty to uphold the Constitution in my view. Would we be holding an impeachment hearing absent this whistle-blower? Did we hold the Bush-Cheney administration accountable? Had we, we may not have had tRump. tRump and his thugs have been asserting the presidency as the highest authority in the nation. Until the whistle-blower, have or did we challenge or counter that in any effective way? The presidency is not the highest authority in the land. Congress is — by way of its oversight authority. We are lucky the whistle-blower came forward. Now we need to ensure real accountability.

This is the question I want our candidates to answer: how will you deal going forward with those responsible for criminal violations regarding foreign influence and interference in our elections, the violations described in the Mueller Report, and related violations unveiled via Congressional hearings and impeachment proceedings? Will you, and if so, how will you hold them accountable?

[grantcart]

23. Criminal, yes; sedition possibly, not close to treason as defined by the constitution.

[KPN]

24. A case can be made that we were/are under

attack by a foreign power. Sure, attorneys will make a case against based on traditional warfare and semantics as well as whether “war” was recognized/realized at the time. But a pretty strong case can be made otherwise. Doing so will be dependent upon the will of those who lead and the people who influence them when we get there.

Accountability is important as a future deterrent. We were perilously close to redefining our Constitution if we aren’t still this time. The next time it may well be someone far smarter and more deceptive than tRump. We shouldn’t go easy on this.

[Cetacea]

33. "Attacked by a foreihn adversary" is the oft-used terminolgy

So, yes.

[grantcart]

36. Absolutely no case can be made that we are at war with Russia

While we are competing centers in a geopolitical competition we are not enemies and not at war.

1) We continue to have full repeat full diplomatic relations with Russia. We continue to cooperate with them in a wide ranging area of cooperation including the International Space Station as well as maintaining all of the regular day to day civilian operations like bilateral trade, banking, and communication.

2) Interfering in another country's elections is not an act of war. An act of war involves destruction and death. I was fortunate not to have witnessed war but I spent 8 years in refugee camps. Of you think this is war then show me the crushed bones of innocent children that have accompanied every war, police action, military involvement, etc.

By equating this action between two competing spheres of influence to an actual war only dilutes the meaning of the word "war", a very unsavoury trend.

The Western Alliance sanctions against Russia have had a crippling effect on quality of life in Russia with (at the last time I looked, could be more now) a reduction of per capita GNP of over 30%. The Russian underclass has suffered immensely with some experiencing life threatening hunger and interruption of medical treatment but we did not attack them and it is not war.

3) Since the USSR disbanded the US occupies the sole position as the country who has interfered more than any other country in other countries elections. While we took a break during the Obama administration the last 80 years provides a mountain of examples of interfering with other countries internal elections, including both goes and friends.

Being an ally didn't save Diem from being assassinated in Vietnam.

A better example is when we instigated a coup to install the Shah as head of Government in order to reestablish the British Oil company as a monopoly in oil extraction in Iran and allow the British to continue to steal Iranian oil.

Yet none of these actions (many of which were done against countries that we were allied with for had neutral relations with I.e. Soth Vietnam, Iran) constitutes an act of war.

4) in terms of the Constitution the case against misappropriating the word "war" is even stronger because it's use is clearly defined in the document.

5) Yes we don't like others interfering with our political rights but our hurt feelings doesn't allow our over sensitive victimhood to redefine what war is.

Here's a clue; If you 'have to use silogisms and analogies "to make the case for war" then there is no war. To know if there is a war all you have to do is see the pile of bodies, the vast destruction of buildings and the long line of pathetic civilians fleeing to save their lives.

A war of words is in fact not a war. Nothing that has happened is evenly remotely close to the way that the founding fathers intended when they used the word "war".

Criminal? Definitely

Sedition? I think is possible to make a case albeit novel that Trump is trying to destroy our system.

Treason? Not even close By the very explicit definition in the US Constitution.

It does exactly fit the way that Trump uses it against his critics and now the whistleblower.

Being a traitor to the Constitution (by the documents' own definition) is, in fact, not treason.

[KPN]

39. I disagree. Your points are legitimate opinions. I just have a different opinion on those points.

For example, what are the direct and indirect long-term effects on human live of policies and actions taken by this illegitimate administration? They are not as immediate or immediately as graphic as casualties of traditional warfare, but they nevertheless exist and are just as debilitating, perhaps worse in terms of long-term effects on the overall population of American citizens. Not a silogism by the way -- a reality.

Another: the founding fathers did not intend the 2nd Amendment to result in any American who wants to procure weapons of mass destruction and bunkers full of ammo to protect themselves against the federal government, but here we are -- legal interpretations have led us here. We are here because of legal cases made against prudent reason and previous dogma. There is no reason a case should not be made in this instance. I want to see one made for the long-term safety and stability of our Constitution and our nation. Not holding these people to the highest level of accountability will just embolden another smarter potential despot down the road. If it works -- great. We've accomplished something positive for the future of mankind. If it doeasn't, we will have at least tried as opposed to weakly saying "we can't".

[AZ8theist]

41. I disagree.

Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

I believe a case could be made against Doturd that was (is) "adhering to their enemies giving them aid and comfort". It says "OR".

If we ever get the the contents of his phone calls to Putin and MBS that are locked away, there will be NO DOUBT Doturd committed Treason.

[panfluteman]

20. It was an active war, alright, just one that had not been formally declared by congress.

And Moscow Mitch was the one who prevented that formal, bipartisan declaration of war - remember? Also, it was a cyber war, a cyber attack, and was not fought with conventional weapons. Otherwise, it was in every way, a real attack, a real war. And Trump is a de facto traitor, committing de facto treason.

[KPN]

25. Exactly.

[grantcart]

37. Not remotely close. See #36 above

[former9thward]

42. I guess I missed that and I try to follow the news.

When was Congress asked to declare war on Russia? It seems all the news outlet missed that one.

[Cha]

7. Mahalo, she..

[sheshe2]

11. I love Liberal Librarian.

Mahalo, Cha.

[Cha]

15. Me, too.. spent many

years reading him on The Obama Diary!

[sheshe2]

16. I know.

[rockfordfile]

9. The Republicans have been insurgents for the Russians

From Florida to Wisconsin.

[BigmanPigman]

13. With a delayed holdover in Kentucky, no doubt.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

21. Moscow Mitch loves Deripaska's money

[wiggs]

14. please include this in articles of impeachment. another example of putting self over country. nt

[lpbk2713]

17. Are Trump's lips moving?

Then you can be sure he's lying.

[rickyhall]

19. Republicans hate communism, not totalitarianism.

[OnlinePoker]

22. To quote the fool himself

You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and TREASON, right? We used to handle it a little differently than we do now.

[Turbineguy]

26. Trump could plead

he was only a Useful Idiot.

[sheshe2]

28. Yes.

[Me.]

27. KR

[Gothmog]

29. K&R

[Stuart G]

30. another reason for Treason, Impeachment: Trump accusing Clinton of being involved in Epstein suicide

I had forgotten...hit link below..

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212369858

[MFGsunny]

31. While "treason" may be able to be argued among legal beagles and constitutional scholars,

there is NO DOUBT that the whole sordid Ukraine-gate, from beginning to now - from Russia WITHOUT love to Russia-the-agitator-aggressor - all of it ABSOLUTELY EQUALS a serious threat to our NATIONAL SECURITY.

Here is link to the 27 September 2019 Statement from National Security Professionals (around 300+ and over 13 pages) describing their analysis.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J7LiS4qKAt48oyOnWon1h5HvSY6mZGtg/view

Follow the facts wherever they lead.

[bucolic_frolic]

32. Espionage

I guess if he weren't the president that might be an issue. He has spilled a few secrets along the way.

[Hotler]

38. Just getting the word "Treason" out there will be more fuel for his insanity.

that is a good thing. We can not let this man have a minute of mental rest.