Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Eliot Rosewater

(31,097 posts)
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:06 PM Aug 2019

Just remembering how many here ATTACKED me for calling rump a traitor 2 years ago

or calling ALL republicans traitors.


ps


The number of people calling me CRAZY for insisting Epstein was murdered, wait a couple years and that will be the same thing.

112 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Just remembering how many here ATTACKED me for calling rump a traitor 2 years ago (Original Post) Eliot Rosewater Aug 2019 OP
That actually happened? For real? bitterross Aug 2019 #1
More than one lecture about the meaning of the word "treason" Eliot Rosewater Aug 2019 #4
Then surely you can provide links to these threads melman Aug 2019 #5
I will be here waiting with you. Tipperary Aug 2019 #14
I suspect we'll be waiting quite a while melman Aug 2019 #15
Or what? Cary Aug 2019 #18
Yes melman Aug 2019 #28
I didn't say it offends me Cary Aug 2019 #33
You didn't have to say it melman Aug 2019 #34
True you also claim to have the power to put words in my mouth Cary Aug 2019 #35
No melman Aug 2019 #36
Except you did Cary Aug 2019 #78
No idea what you're talking about melman Aug 2019 #79
Yeah right Cary Aug 2019 #80
Seriously melman Aug 2019 #82
Oh well Cary Aug 2019 #84
Great melman Aug 2019 #87
That isn't the problem Cary Aug 2019 #88
That's not a problem for me melman Aug 2019 #89
No one said it was a problem for you. Cary Aug 2019 #94
I didn't say they did melman Aug 2019 #95
OH well Cary Aug 2019 #96
Dear Cary, Polly Hennessey Aug 2019 #104
How would you know if I was irritated? Cary Aug 2019 #106
Tons of them stating you have to be at war treestar Aug 2019 #54
And attacking the OP? melman Aug 2019 #55
That would be calling people out and that's against the rules here. n/t pnwmom Aug 2019 #64
No it wouldn't melman Aug 2019 #71
The OP is calling out posters on DU. former9thward Aug 2019 #90
Not specific posters, by name and post. There's a difference. n/t pnwmom Aug 2019 #91
I am sure it is to you. former9thward Aug 2019 #93
Yea, I wanna see them too. MuseRider Aug 2019 #85
'traitor' and 'treason' have important distinctions. empedocles Aug 2019 #6
A traitor is "One who commits treason." How's that different? bitterross Aug 2019 #8
You chose the second definition SCantiGOP Aug 2019 #17
'Treason' involves a tough legal standard. empedocles Aug 2019 #19
Correct. TwilightZone Aug 2019 #31
Cold War with Russia,... magicarpet Aug 2019 #51
Doesn't apply. TwilightZone Aug 2019 #57
Can you link to Mueller's comment? former9thward Aug 2019 #92
Ain't nothing "general" about it in the US sir pball Aug 2019 #46
an overt act Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2019 #49
That doesn't matter and it has no requirement for war bitterross Aug 2019 #48
"adheres to their enemies" TwilightZone Aug 2019 #59
If I recall correctly a traitor is someone who commits treason? brush Aug 2019 #32
Many of us were attacked for the treason word malaise Aug 2019 #7
Of course, and you can predict who is going to do that shit. Eliot Rosewater Aug 2019 #9
I think I am hearing echos of the past here already. triron Aug 2019 #66
It really doesn't surprise me. bitterross Aug 2019 #10
It is one thing for caution, entirely another when we can count on Eliot Rosewater Aug 2019 #11
Remember it well. Kingofalldems Aug 2019 #16
Yeah, I remember those Bettie Aug 2019 #60
Yep I got a few of those as well. triron Aug 2019 #65
Technically it should be sedition rather than treason but the meaning is clear grantcart Aug 2019 #86
Thumbs up Eliot Rosewater Aug 2019 #97
Depends on how narrow your definition of 'war' is. triron Aug 2019 #99
Sorry but not even close for 3 reasons grantcart Aug 2019 #100
Well articulated! triron Aug 2019 #102
Thanks for a generous reply grantcart Aug 2019 #103
. Ptah Aug 2019 #2
Did they join in 2016? jpak Aug 2019 #3
Here? Got a link? I can't imagine any DUer getting upset for calling an asshole traitor a traitor Autumn Aug 2019 #12
I know someone at DU who gets upset over nonsense all.the time. Cary Aug 2019 #20
Me too! And that person is so passive aggressive and persecuted by gosh! Autumn Aug 2019 #26
The person also loves the "I know you are but what am I?" Cary Aug 2019 #68
+2 Celerity Aug 2019 #67
Some DUers get upset at the loose use of the terms treason and traitor onenote Aug 2019 #58
That's their problem instead of giving a fuck what RW nuts say they need to move on . Autumn Aug 2019 #61
I don't recall posts "attacking" DUers for using the term onenote Aug 2019 #62
I don't consider a discussion an attack. Even most disagreements aren't attacks just Autumn Aug 2019 #63
Some here seem more sensitive than others. cwydro Aug 2019 #73
Hell, I once posed the question if Alex Jones could be sued for libel and slander Downtown Hound Aug 2019 #13
Well, I just skimmed the thread you linked to marybourg Aug 2019 #21
Most of them said no Downtown Hound Aug 2019 #23
You should have studied harder. Ptah Aug 2019 #22
Read the above link Downtown Hound Aug 2019 #24
Has that case gone to trial? Ptah Aug 2019 #27
November 2020 Downtown Hound Aug 2019 #29
I hear you blm Aug 2019 #25
Trump is a traitor. Traitor Trump sharedvalues Aug 2019 #30
Oh my. demmiblue Aug 2019 #37
No kidding. cwydro Aug 2019 #50
Awe. You poor thing. SixString Aug 2019 #38
Wasn't me I agree then and now nt doc03 Aug 2019 #39
Apparently some think it is a laughing matter that such a thing happened to some of us Eliot Rosewater Aug 2019 #40
I remember someone disagreeing with me once. Codeine Aug 2019 #41
+1000 nt USALiberal Aug 2019 #53
Did you ever get over it? n/t zackymilly Aug 2019 #74
I might need to make several OPs about it. Codeine Aug 2019 #81
ok I'll bite - how many? nt msongs Aug 2019 #42
what? link? Demonaut Aug 2019 #43
Link to thread required! Nt USALiberal Aug 2019 #44
You poor thing GusBob Aug 2019 #45
You were right about Republican Traitors and you will be proved right about Epstein njhoneybadger Aug 2019 #47
I view people that stand up for the status quo as invested in that position pecosbob Aug 2019 #52
Kick dalton99a Aug 2019 #56
Sorry, but you're neither so unique as you remember, Eliot, Hortensis Aug 2019 #69
I do remeber Malcolm Nance and a few others saying the 'T' word; even one former Fox news guy. triron Aug 2019 #72
:) Yes, and others on screen media alone, but also Hortensis Aug 2019 #76
I still don't get why Mueller ended his investigation where he did. triron Aug 2019 #110
Yes. The scope allowed may have required it. The investigation Hortensis Aug 2019 #111
If you know you're not crazy, there's no need to let it bother you Sugar Smack Aug 2019 #70
Have you been holding this in for 2 years? nt zackymilly Aug 2019 #75
Ha! Tipperary Aug 2019 #105
"TREASON" has a legal definition marybourg Aug 2019 #77
I remember that too Generic Brad Aug 2019 #83
Several even now on this thread very upset with me for even thinking he is a traitor Eliot Rosewater Aug 2019 #98
Trump was compromised from the beginning maybe for several decades. gordianot Aug 2019 #101
TRASH THREAD. nt UniteFightBack Aug 2019 #107
had to log on to agree. Obama calls the attacks "circular firing squads" Sunlei Aug 2019 #108
Thanks, but apparently there are still MANY who dont like it when WE call him a traitor Eliot Rosewater Aug 2019 #112
Between this and you wanting to arrest climate deniers for murder... LanternWaste Aug 2019 #109
 

bitterross

(4,066 posts)
1. That actually happened? For real?
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:09 PM
Aug 2019

I find it hard to believe anyone on this site every thought he was anything else but a traitor and grifter.

 

melman

(7,681 posts)
28. Yes
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:56 PM
Aug 2019

I think if someone is going to make a thread like this, then they should be able to back it up with some proof.


So sorry if that offends you.

Cary

(11,746 posts)
33. I didn't say it offends me
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 09:12 PM
Aug 2019

I said that Elliot doesn't have anything to prove to you.

You disagree, it seems. I can't quite tell from your answer but apparently you run some kind of cyber toll booth and you are important, somehow.

Cary

(11,746 posts)
78. Except you did
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 03:42 PM
Aug 2019

Do you make a good profit from your toll booth. Doesn't seem to me like your business model is functional.

 

melman

(7,681 posts)
87. Great
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 04:33 PM
Aug 2019

If it's that boring for you then I suppose we can stop talking about it. That will be great.


I mean, I never wanted to talk about it in the first place but still. That will be great.. Thanks.

 

melman

(7,681 posts)
95. I didn't say they did
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 07:04 PM
Aug 2019

I'm really beyond tired of this so I'm going to stop replying. Thanks!

empedocles

(15,751 posts)
6. 'traitor' and 'treason' have important distinctions.
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:12 PM
Aug 2019

Not for nothing that I've used 'traitortrump' for a long time, avoiding the 'treason' word and its legal implications.

 

bitterross

(4,066 posts)
8. A traitor is "One who commits treason." How's that different?
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:16 PM
Aug 2019
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traitor

traitor noun
trai·​tor | ˈtrā-tər
Definition of traitor
1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
2 : one who commits treason

SCantiGOP

(13,856 posts)
17. You chose the second definition
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:33 PM
Aug 2019

and ignored the first.

Treason is generally the act of giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. That would be why the OP was challenged on saying that Trump was guilty of treason.

empedocles

(15,751 posts)
19. 'Treason' involves a tough legal standard.
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:45 PM
Aug 2019

'Traitor' can certainly overlap with treason, but has a lower bar, as in 'he was a traitor to his family', - which may not even be a crime pe se.

magicarpet

(13,945 posts)
51. Cold War with Russia,...
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 08:54 AM
Aug 2019

It is happening by design,.... but Putin hopes to conceal it.

The pan is on the back burner,
The flame is cranked to super high maximum.

Warfare game plan,... trip you up,.. act covertly,.. launch their attack from 1,000 different directions - all at once.

Your head is constantly spinning,... you habitually feel nauseous and feel the need to vomit. The "amusement ride" won't stop,.. you just want to get the fuck off.

Have things and your life return to a state of normalcy - minus the never ending chaos and mayhem - day in and day out gumming things up turning reality upside down.

A soft war,.. but no less devastating and disruptive than artillery, guns, and bombs.

(For goodness sake,... even Mueller called Team trDump treasonous.)

TwilightZone

(25,342 posts)
57. Doesn't apply.
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 01:09 PM
Aug 2019

The Rosenbergs couldn't be prosecuted for treason. If it didn't apply to them, it certainly doesn't apply to Trump. A cold war isn't a declared war.

We should use words correctly. Using them haphazardly accomplishes nothing. It just makes us look uninformed.

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

sir pball

(4,726 posts)
46. Ain't nothing "general" about it in the US
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 11:32 PM
Aug 2019

It's a very specific crime and the only one explicitly detailed in the Constitution, for better or worse. Not for disloyalty, or speaking out against the President King, or even cozying up to strongmen and dictators worldwide.

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.


Article III, Section 3

Hermit-The-Prog

(33,041 posts)
49. an overt act
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 05:37 AM
Aug 2019

TrumPutin attempted to remove sanctions against Russia.

TrumPutin failed to implement sanctions as required by law.

Each of these gave "aid and comfort" to an enemy of the United States. The known attacks on our elections by Putin makes him an enemy.

No need to list the various ways in which TrumPutin has given aid and comfort to our enemies by denigrating our allies and alliances.

No need to list various ways in which TrumPutin has adhered to our enemies, including Kim Jong Un.

 

bitterross

(4,066 posts)
48. That doesn't matter and it has no requirement for war
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 11:44 PM
Aug 2019

From M-W:

The system of separating the various senses of a word by numerals and letters is a lexical convenience. It reflects something of their semantic relationship, but it does not evaluate senses or set up a hierarchy of importance among them.

Either definition is completely acceptable. One is not more valid than the other. There is no word "treasonist" in the dictionary because we have the word traitor.

I don't have to write a sentence that says: "Donald Trump is a traitor to this nation - I mean he committed treason." I simply need to say "Donald Trump is a traitor." When we speak of traitors, the name Benedict Arnold often comes up. Why? Because he committed treason. Yes, we were at war at the time, but that is not a requirement for treason.

Your stated definition of treason is incorrect. The mention of a time of war is no where to be found in the definition in either the dictionary or US Federal Code. I believe the acts of Donald The Chosen are much more in line with the federal definition of treason below, clearly fit the term treason, and therefore, he is a traitor. If there were a word "treasonist" he would fit the likely definition of that word as well.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason
treason noun
trea·​son | ˈtrē-zᵊn

Definition of treason

1 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
2 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery

Finally, war is not required as part of the Federal definition of treason.:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/html/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap115-sec2381.htm

18 U.S. Code § 2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them OR adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

TwilightZone

(25,342 posts)
59. "adheres to their enemies"
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 01:16 PM
Aug 2019

Russia isn't a declared enemy.

Also, a cold war isn't a declared war. The Rosenbergs weren't tried for treason, in part for that reason. If it didn't apply to them, it certainly doesn't apply to Trump.

The dictionary definition is irrelevant. Treason has very specific legal requirements in the United States, which are much narrower than the dictionary's generalization.

"Americans have forgotten what 'treason' actually means — and how it can be abused"

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

brush

(53,477 posts)
32. If I recall correctly a traitor is someone who commits treason?
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 09:10 PM
Aug 2019

One is the act and the other is perpetrator.

malaise

(267,847 posts)
7. Many of us were attacked for the treason word
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:16 PM
Aug 2019

and also for saying that the elections were stolen.

I'm with you - truth will out.

Eliot Rosewater

(31,097 posts)
9. Of course, and you can predict who is going to do that shit.
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:17 PM
Aug 2019

VAST majority here do NOT do that shit. VAST majority here are real liberals, real Democrats.

Otherwise I wouldnt be here

 

bitterross

(4,066 posts)
10. It really doesn't surprise me.
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:18 PM
Aug 2019

We are so cautious and timid about what we say. It's a factor in our losing too often.

Eliot Rosewater

(31,097 posts)
11. It is one thing for caution, entirely another when we can count on
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:23 PM
Aug 2019

certain folks to challenge anything like that.

When you could make a case for the entire W admin being traitors given their actions

Bettie

(15,998 posts)
60. Yeah, I remember those
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 01:17 PM
Aug 2019

'well, technically it isn't treason, because congress hasn't declared war...' and so on.

I got that more than once too.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
86. Technically it should be sedition rather than treason but the meaning is clear
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 04:25 PM
Aug 2019

(Treason is for giving aid to an enemy during war, sedition is the action to destroy constitutional government)

triron

(21,916 posts)
99. Depends on how narrow your definition of 'war' is.
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 10:14 PM
Aug 2019

We will never be in a declared war with Russia, so I claim legal Treason is obsolete as is.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
100. Sorry but not even close for 3 reasons
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 11:41 PM
Aug 2019

1) Treason is an explicitly defined crime in the Constitution

Unlike murder, rape, theft, etc Treason is not defined by statute but is specifically enumerated in the constitution. For that reason the meaning is explicitly defined and isn't evolved by public "perspective" or individual claims. Its meaning cannot change or evolve except by an amendment to article 3.



Article 3 Section 3

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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.




War in this article reflects war that is defined by Article 1

So the term "Treason" is a very explicit constitutional term in the same way that "Inauguration" or "Impeachment" or "Senate" is well defined and not determined by popular use. It is exactly what the constitution says it is and anything else really gives a false interpretation. It would be like using the term "Senate" to mean "House of Representatives". People can do it, but it doesn't reflect a term that is specifically codified in the Constitution.

To equate what Russia did to "war" is to radically dilute the meaning of the word "war" and in so doing reduce the horror we should have at real war.

2) What Russia did doesn't approach any definition of war except for the highly diluted term as used in casual references like "War of words".

Wars involve the physical destruction of people. It is true that Vietnam was an undeclared war and while I was fortunate enough not to have to be involved in the conflict I spent 10 years in the refugee camps working with the hundreds of thousands of refugees. Russia's attack on our system was not an undeclared war. It was very similar to the types of attacks on other nations systems that we have done on a regular basis. How great is our outrage when we are the victim and how quiet are our voices when we attack.

To give you an example in 1953 the US, at the request of the British, engineered a coup to take out the elected President, Mosaddeq, from office. Mosaddeq had run on a platform to renegotiate the unfair oil leases which gave British Petroleum Oil 100% control of all of Iran's oil production while giving Iran a token royalty. When Mosaddeq insisted on renegotiating the leases on a fairer basis Britain instituted a blockade



Shortly thereafter on August 19 a successful coup was headed by retired army general Fazlollah Zahedi, organized by the United States (CIA)[173] with the active support of the British (MI6) (known as Operation Ajax and Operation Boot to the respective agencies).[174] The coup—with a black propaganda campaign designed to turn the population against Mosaddeq—forced Mosaddeq from office. Mosaddeq was arrested and tried for treason. Found guilty, his sentence reduced to house arrest on his family estate while his foreign minister, Hossein Fatemi, was executed. Zahedi succeeded him as prime minister, and suppressed opposition to the Shah, specifically the National Front and Communist Tudeh Party.



What we did was unacceptable, criminal and violates our own code of how countries should respect other countries sovereignty, but it wasn't war, or close to war.

It, and many other things we have done, are much worse than what the Russians have done. We should have the same level of accountability against our own actions as we have against the Russians which really don't reach the level of the way that we have attacked the democratic institutions of other countries.

3) By focusing on Russian actions you are radically narrowing the real intent and real crime of the Trump administration.

The real crime of the Trump isn't the narrow perspective you infer in using a foreign power to get power. I would argue that the real crime is to undermine Constitutional government and transform the traditional division of power and attack established order to transform it into an autocratic regime that undermines the constitutional separation of power and concentrate it into an individual, and one family.

The attack on our elections by the Russians is only a small part of an attack on our Department of Justice, Department of State, Department of Defense, Federal law enforcement, Scientists in the federal government, the independence of the Judiciary, and so on.

The Russian interference was a very small part of a larger action to undermine our entire constitutional structure in an effort to replace it with one man (and one family) rule.

The foreign part (which is frequently incorrectly called Treason) is a much smaller part of a much larger criminal action which is better captured by the term Sedition:



Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.



I think an objective understanding of what Trump is doing shows a much greater affinity to someone who is trying to subvert the constitution and the established authority rather than a narrow (and incorrectly defined charge) use of treason which only applies to accommodating foreign interference. The reason that Treason is the go to term isn't because it fits the very specific term as defined by the constitution but because Sedition has become so rare as to seem as archaic. Of course no one really considered the possibility of the President being a seditionist.

Cary

(11,746 posts)
20. I know someone at DU who gets upset over nonsense all.the time.
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:48 PM
Aug 2019

And this person loves the sealioning ploy.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
58. Some DUers get upset at the loose use of the terms treason and traitor
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 01:13 PM
Aug 2019

because they remember have those labels applied to them (and others who resisted the draft, defended Jane Fonda, and otherwise opposed US actions) during the Vietnam War.

Autumn

(44,765 posts)
61. That's their problem instead of giving a fuck what RW nuts say they need to move on .
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 01:22 PM
Aug 2019

Donald Trump is a fucking traitor. But that's a big difference in disagreeing about the usage of the term and attacking a person for using it.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
62. I don't recall posts "attacking" DUers for using the term
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 01:25 PM
Aug 2019

I guess it depends on what one considers an "attack". For example, you might consider this post an "attack" on you, but I would hope you wouldn't.

Autumn

(44,765 posts)
63. I don't consider a discussion an attack. Even most disagreements aren't attacks just
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 01:57 PM
Aug 2019

different points of view.

 

cwydro

(51,308 posts)
73. Some here seem more sensitive than others.
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 03:07 PM
Aug 2019

Thicker skins are needed around here, especially in the primaries forum lol.

Downtown Hound

(12,618 posts)
13. Hell, I once posed the question if Alex Jones could be sued for libel and slander
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:26 PM
Aug 2019

by the parents of murdered Sandy Hook children for publicly stating on the air, multiple times, that they made the whole thing up and for the harassment they endured as a result. A whole horde of DU self-proclaimed legal experts told me no, that it was impossible, and that I didn't understand the law (even though I did, I studied journalism in college and we spent months discussing libel laws and case history).

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210273260#post48

Oops, looks like many of DU self-proclaimed experts are anything but. It was a good lesson to me to not automatically trust not only DU public opinion, but public opinion in general.

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/03/31/alex-jones-is-being-sued-his-false-sandy-hook-hoax-claims-he-blames-psychosis/

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/18/733880866/sandy-hook-victims-father-wins-defamation-suit-alex-jones-sanctioned



marybourg

(12,540 posts)
21. Well, I just skimmed the thread you linked to
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:50 PM
Aug 2019

and I didnt see that the consensus was "no. Quite the opposite. You were given both lay and legal opinions in that thread and even the lay ones - insofar as they addressed the issue snd didn't meander off on a path of their own - agreed that it should at least be tried. Of course, I didn't read every post. But why even bring this up now?

Downtown Hound

(12,618 posts)
23. Most of them said no
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:52 PM
Aug 2019

And I bring it up to show that when DU piles on you, it doesn't mean they're right, even if they're the majority.

Ptah

(32,983 posts)
22. You should have studied harder.
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:51 PM
Aug 2019

A Wisconsin judge issued a summary judgment in favor of Pozner
in a defamation lawsuit against the authors of a book called Nobody
Died at Sandy Hook, a 400-page book purporting a series of false claims,
including ideas that the mass shooting was a FEMA drill to promote gun
control and that the grieving father had fabricated his son Noah's death certificate,
which is a crime in Connecticut.

"Mr. Pozner has sought for years to try to get these conspiracy theorists to
understand that his son really was a person and that his son really did die
and as a last resort we initiated this defamation case," Pozner's lawyer,
Jake Zimmerman, told NPR.

The lawsuit focused narrowly on the claim by James Fetzer and Mike Palecek
that Pozner had forged or faked the death certificate, though it also alluded
to other convoluted theories advanced by Fetzer on his blog, including the
theory that Noah was not Pozner's son.

 

cwydro

(51,308 posts)
50. No kidding.
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 06:34 AM
Aug 2019

I think sometimes people should step away from the keyboard for awhile, get out in the sunshine.

Eliot Rosewater

(31,097 posts)
40. Apparently some think it is a laughing matter that such a thing happened to some of us
Sat Aug 24, 2019, 10:06 PM
Aug 2019

The issue is OF COURSE not me or my feelings, AT ALL...but that such comments were made and if you look at this thread there are some who might still want to make that comment.

sigh

And the disingenuous bullshit as if this has anything to do with me personally, sigh...

pecosbob

(7,511 posts)
52. I view people that stand up for the status quo as invested in that position
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 09:30 AM
Aug 2019

From the legal experts to the big tenters to the blue dogs...all invested in maintaining the status quo.

When the tumbrels and the torches come will you be riding in them or following them? That's the question.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
69. Sorry, but you're neither so unique as you remember, Eliot,
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 02:28 PM
Aug 2019

nor so important. Even many national figures with reputations to protect were saying publicly that they could come up with no explanation for Trump's behavior toward Russia except betrayal.

And most of us here were saying that in much stronger terms and earlier also.

This is about Trump, the presidency, our nation, our party and our futures.

triron

(21,916 posts)
72. I do remeber Malcolm Nance and a few others saying the 'T' word; even one former Fox news guy.
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 02:49 PM
Aug 2019

A Colonel Peters I think.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
76. :) Yes, and others on screen media alone, but also
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 03:35 PM
Aug 2019

many in written media, where by far most information and significant commentary are found.

I'd forgotten about Col. Peters, both versions, former Fox/Trump and current. No matter how eagerly he badmouths Trump now, no amount of wondering could come up with a respectable, whitewashing explanation for him either.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
111. Yes. The scope allowed may have required it. The investigation
Mon Aug 26, 2019, 11:50 AM
Aug 2019

into Comey's interference in the election was very strictly limited to I think one action or not much more, literally not allowing investigation of various behaviors that all benefited Republicans and hurt Democrats over the entire campaign. And we only know of those that became public.

marybourg

(12,540 posts)
77. "TREASON" has a legal definition
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 03:35 PM
Aug 2019

and tRump does not meet it. "Traitor" is merely a slur, and anyone can sling it at a public figure in this country. And does. Get over yourself.

Generic Brad

(14,270 posts)
83. I remember that too
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 04:11 PM
Aug 2019

The most common retort I recall is that treason can only happen during a time of war. There is a contingent here that seem to believe an attack by subterfuge initiated by a foreign power is not a legally recognized act of war.

Eliot Rosewater

(31,097 posts)
98. Several even now on this thread very upset with me for even thinking he is a traitor
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 07:56 PM
Aug 2019

or they make smart ass comments about me personally, which seems to be OK to do here endlessly.

gordianot

(15,226 posts)
101. Trump was compromised from the beginning maybe for several decades.
Mon Aug 26, 2019, 12:02 AM
Aug 2019

Those wanting to see his taxes and financial entanglements know there is something he is hiding and probably know what and where to look. Imagine the peril if it were not a Narcissist braggart who was recruited by Russia. Someone so profoundly ignorant that he shows the world he has something to hide by his rhetoric clearly contrary to the United States national interests. Trump would be a terrible poker player he shows his hand constantly. No matter he is about to be caught Trump served his Russian handlers well merely with the chaos he creates.

If Trump is a traitor God forbid we experience one that can manage his mouth and ego.

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)
108. had to log on to agree. Obama calls the attacks "circular firing squads"
Mon Aug 26, 2019, 08:45 AM
Aug 2019

The archives are full of firing squads led on by smurf accounts.


Also agree, Epstein was 'murdered'. His 'cellmate' for first couple days was that crazy killer cop. That's when Epstein was choked a bit and schooled in how to wrap a sheet around his neck & roll off the top bunk. Told what would happen if he didn't. Ep. made a new will the next day, got put in a cell alone, no video surveillance(sure), both! guards asleep(sure)........



/log off

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
109. Between this and you wanting to arrest climate deniers for murder...
Mon Aug 26, 2019, 09:32 AM
Aug 2019

Well... just bless your little heart.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Just remembering how many...