General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJust 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.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)I find it hard to believe anyone on this site every thought he was anything else but a traitor and grifter.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)Let's see 'em.
Tipperary
(6,930 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)Elliot has to prove himself to you?
I don't think so.
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)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.
melman
(7,681 posts)The tone of the post makes it clear.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Impressive.
I actually didn't do that.
Last reply here. Sorry.
Cary
(11,746 posts)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)Sorry.
Toll booth? Functional business model? I have no idea what any of that means.
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.
Cary
(11,746 posts)The problem is:
I don't believe you.
melman
(7,681 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)Except you.
melman
(7,681 posts)I'm really beyond tired of this so I'm going to stop replying. Thanks!
Polly Hennessey
(6,747 posts)I also have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you are easily irritated 😠.
Cary
(11,746 posts)You just said you didn't understand my posts.
treestar
(82,383 posts)to have a charge of treason.
melman
(7,681 posts)Let's see 'em.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)People post links to old threads all time.
former9thward
(31,807 posts)Is that ok with you?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)former9thward
(31,807 posts)MuseRider
(34,060 posts)The last thing we need around here is made up drama.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)Not for nothing that I've used 'traitortrump' for a long time, avoiding the 'treason' word and its legal implications.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)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)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)'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.
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)We're not officially at war with anyone, including Russia.
magicarpet
(13,945 posts)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)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
former9thward
(31,807 posts)The report is online if that helps.
sir pball
(4,726 posts)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)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)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)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)One is the act and the other is perpetrator.
malaise
(267,847 posts)and also for saying that the elections were stolen.
I'm with you - truth will out.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)VAST majority here do NOT do that shit. VAST majority here are real liberals, real Democrats.
Otherwise I wouldnt be here
triron
(21,916 posts)bitterross
(4,066 posts)We are so cautious and timid about what we say. It's a factor in our losing too often.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)certain folks to challenge anything like that.
When you could make a case for the entire W admin being traitors given their actions
Kingofalldems
(38,361 posts)Some were top secret Trump supporters.
Bettie
(15,998 posts)'well, technically it isn't treason, because congress hasn't declared war...' and so on.
I got that more than once too.
triron
(21,916 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)(Treason is for giving aid to an enemy during war, sedition is the action to destroy constitutional government)
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)triron
(21,916 posts)We will never be in a declared war with Russia, so I claim legal Treason is obsolete as is.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)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 coupwith a black propaganda campaign designed to turn the population against Mosaddeqforced 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.
triron
(21,916 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)Ptah
(32,983 posts)jpak
(41,742 posts)Autumn
(44,765 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)And this person loves the sealioning ploy.
Autumn
(44,765 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)onenote
(42,383 posts)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)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)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)different points of view.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Thicker skins are needed around here, especially in the primaries forum lol.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)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)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)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)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.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)The lower one was just an addendum.
Ptah
(32,983 posts)Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)But if that one father won against that book and Jones was sanctioned, it's looking really bad for Jones. That was why I included that link.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/07/11/another-twist-sandy-hook-families-defamation-case-against-alex-jones/?noredirect=on
blm
(112,920 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)thanks for carrying the torch!
demmiblue
(36,751 posts)So many hyperbolic and bizarre posts lately.
Take care.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)I think sometimes people should step away from the keyboard for awhile, get out in the sunshine.
SixString
(1,057 posts)doc03
(35,151 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)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...
Codeine
(25,586 posts)That shit was brutal, man. Thoughts and prayers.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)zackymilly
(2,375 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)Ill show THEM! *shakes tiny ineffectual fist*
msongs
(67,199 posts)Demonaut
(8,909 posts)USALiberal
(10,877 posts)GusBob
(7,286 posts)I truly feel sorry for the cross you have to bear
njhoneybadger
(3,910 posts)pecosbob
(7,511 posts)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.
dalton99a
(81,091 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)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)A Colonel Peters I think.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)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.
triron
(21,916 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)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.
Sugar Smack
(18,748 posts)now, or two years later.
zackymilly
(2,375 posts)Tipperary
(6,930 posts)Thread win!
marybourg
(12,540 posts)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)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)or they make smart ass comments about me personally, which seems to be OK to do here endlessly.
gordianot
(15,226 posts)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.
UniteFightBack
(8,231 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)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
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)weird that
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Well... just bless your little heart.