Charge Donald Trump with treason, maybe execute him

the rope a dope, of course, only works on dopes.though it seems you admire it.

Jackson_Fusion said:

Does no one see the rope a dope coming? It'll go like this:




"Her people are upset that I said that Russia should release whatever emails they may have hacked from her unprotected server that by the way she lies about. What's the bigger problem, that I want the American people to see whatever she was trying to hide, or that she was so worried that they would see it that she put America at risk by giving the whole world the ability to see our secrets? That's the issue here! Bad! Not good! Very sad! Pathetic!"

Trap, trap, trap.

conandrob240 said:

1) do you really think he has any idea what he's saying? Meaning, do you think he has any idea whether he means the Russians have them vs. still have to get them? I wouldn't put any weight in that at all.

2) For this particular argument ( that Trump might be guilty of treason), it doesn't freakin' matter WHAT the emails say and whether they were personal or highly confidential. That he suggested that another country commit cyber espionage against his own country, there's the treason. The emails in question could be a grocery list. That isn't the point.

Jackson_Fusion said:

bramzzoinks said:

Hey, that's what they suggested for Clinton.

But asking a foreign power to hack the emails of a former Secretary of State and a Presidential candidate does seem to me to at least border on treason.

Just when you think Trump could not possibly stick his foot any further into his mouth he proceeds to do so.

As I understand it, the servers have been in FBI possession forever. Certainly they are not connected to the Internet, so how are they going to be hacked?

Isn't he saying that the Russians should release the 30k emails they have that were deleted as personal by hillary's legal team? The Russians, if they hacked her, already have the emails and have had them for some time.

Reading the NYT story, he says they should "find her missing emails". That would mean releasing emails the Russians already have to the American public- emails that Hillary has declared to be completely personal. 

Ugh. So the Clinton campaign is in the position of bashing Donald for asking a foreign power to release emails the Clinton team has sworn up and down aren't related to national security. Which makes no sense. Who cares about their yoga schedules? 

So either they're a big deal and Hillary lied or they're no big deal at all and there is nothing to attack Trump over. Either way it keeps the private server debacle on the front page.

It's a trap. It is a trap, and a well constructed one.

If you only listen to Fox News and follow the right wing blogosphere and live in rural America or parts of the south then it's a problem.  I think librarylady mentioned it earlier but this news was virtually ignored on foxnews.com.  I checked multiple times today and it was nowhere on their landing page. All there is now is a little thing that says "campaign denies blah blah"

conandrob240 said:

I think only you see that. I think even a Teump supporter can separate the issues. It doesn't matter what was in the email, what he said was truly insane, unpatriotic and possibly treason. 

Oy. Like those are the only options. Of course Trump isn't going to be charged with treason and of course the media and more are going to continue to obsess over Clintons emails. Neither changes the fact that Trump's statements today were dangerous and despicable regardless of what was or wasn't in Hillarys emails. 

Jackson_Fusion said:

Let me help you out.

Nobody's hacking her server for emails today, tomorrow, or ever. The server is like those are the only options. Of course, he's not going to be charged with treason and of course shrink wrapped and unplugged in some evidence locker with the FBI. Any emails anyone hacked happened when the server was being run outside of government protection.

So if Russians, Chinese, North Koreans or aliens have her emails it's because it was being run improperly months or years ago. 

So let's meet back here in a week and see which of 2 things happen- Trump is seriously threatened with treason charges, or he uses this to turn the subject back to the server.

I know where my money is. Maybe I'm crazy! We'll find out.

conandrob240 said:

Oh my goodness, you just don't get it. One has nothing to do with the other. Even if we knew her email was all pictures of her grandkids and we all agreed that's all that was there, it is not okay for someone to suggest another country use espionage to hack into our servers to get it. You cannot make the connection here you are reaching for.

Jackson_Fusion said:

conandrob240 said:

I think only you see that. I think even a Teump supporter can separate the issues. It doesn't matter what was in the email, what he said was truly insane, unpatriotic and possibly treason. 

What hurts America more, stating that Russia should release hacked emails that it's being assumed they have or running a private server against the rules and giving Russia or any other adversary access to top level American secrets? 

If it's treason to say what he said (it's not), what do we call what she did? Can there be any comparison in terms of damage?

That's what Trump will go with. Its skull crushingly obvious. 

I missed the part where I said it wasn't- if for no other reason than releasing those emails would wiki leaks the state department. Just because a hacker saw it doesn't mean it needs to be posted for every human on the planet to see it. 

But Trump doesn't control foreign powers, and they will do what they think is in their interests no matter what he says. His statement has zero impact on the probability that emails were hacked and if hacked will be released. 

But here we are, on the biggest night of the DNC, talking about what he said today.

conandrob240 said:

Oy. Like those are the only options. Of course Trump isn't going to be charged with treason and of course the media and more are going to continue to obsess over Clintons emails. Neither changes the fact that Trump's statements today were dangerous and despicable regardless of what was or wasn't in Hillarys emails. 

Jackson_Fusion said:

Let me help you out.

Nobody's hacking her server for emails today, tomorrow, or ever. The server is like those are the only options. Of course, he's not going to be charged with treason and of course shrink wrapped and unplugged in some evidence locker with the FBI. Any emails anyone hacked happened when the server was being run outside of government protection.

So if Russians, Chinese, North Koreans or aliens have her emails it's because it was being run improperly months or years ago. 

So let's meet back here in a week and see which of 2 things happen- Trump is seriously threatened with treason charges, or he uses this to turn the subject back to the server.

I know where my money is. Maybe I'm crazy! We'll find out.

conandrob240 said:

Oh my goodness, you just don't get it. One has nothing to do with the other. Even if we knew her email was all pictures of her grandkids and we all agreed that's all that was there, it is not okay for someone to suggest another country use espionage to hack into our servers to get it. You cannot make the connection here you are reaching for.

Jackson_Fusion said:

conandrob240 said:

I think only you see that. I think even a Teump supporter can separate the issues. It doesn't matter what was in the email, what he said was truly insane, unpatriotic and possibly treason. 

What hurts America more, stating that Russia should release hacked emails that it's being assumed they have or running a private server against the rules and giving Russia or any other adversary access to top level American secrets? 

If it's treason to say what he said (it's not), what do we call what she did? Can there be any comparison in terms of damage?

That's what Trump will go with. Its skull crushingly obvious. 

And yet here you are. How marvelous.

drummerboy said:

the rope a dope, of course, only works on dopes.though it seems you admire it.

Jackson_Fusion said:

Does no one see the rope a dope coming? It'll go like this:




"Her people are upset that I said that Russia should release whatever emails they may have hacked from her unprotected server that by the way she lies about. What's the bigger problem, that I want the American people to see whatever she was trying to hide, or that she was so worried that they would see it that she put America at risk by giving the whole world the ability to see our secrets? That's the issue here! Bad! Not good! Very sad! Pathetic!"

Trap, trap, trap.

conandrob240 said:

1) do you really think he has any idea what he's saying? Meaning, do you think he has any idea whether he means the Russians have them vs. still have to get them? I wouldn't put any weight in that at all.

2) For this particular argument ( that Trump might be guilty of treason), it doesn't freakin' matter WHAT the emails say and whether they were personal or highly confidential. That he suggested that another country commit cyber espionage against his own country, there's the treason. The emails in question could be a grocery list. That isn't the point.

Jackson_Fusion said:

bramzzoinks said:

Hey, that's what they suggested for Clinton.

But asking a foreign power to hack the emails of a former Secretary of State and a Presidential candidate does seem to me to at least border on treason.

Just when you think Trump could not possibly stick his foot any further into his mouth he proceeds to do so.

As I understand it, the servers have been in FBI possession forever. Certainly they are not connected to the Internet, so how are they going to be hacked?

Isn't he saying that the Russians should release the 30k emails they have that were deleted as personal by hillary's legal team? The Russians, if they hacked her, already have the emails and have had them for some time.

Reading the NYT story, he says they should "find her missing emails". That would mean releasing emails the Russians already have to the American public- emails that Hillary has declared to be completely personal. 

Ugh. So the Clinton campaign is in the position of bashing Donald for asking a foreign power to release emails the Clinton team has sworn up and down aren't related to national security. Which makes no sense. Who cares about their yoga schedules? 

So either they're a big deal and Hillary lied or they're no big deal at all and there is nothing to attack Trump over. Either way it keeps the private server debacle on the front page.

It's a trap. It is a trap, and a well constructed one.

Much ado about nothing IMO.  This is what we get excited about?  The elites on the left and the right steal from us, rig primaries, use the IRS to harass us, spy on us, blow up countries to serve their own interests, and we sit by calmly and watch.  

Donald Trump makes a stupid comment and everyone loses their *****.  SMH 

I can both discuss what the idiot said AND simultaneously be interested in and engaged with the DNC. 

Anyone who thinks Trump is troubling with regard to potential buddying up with Putin should probably watch this,  particularly starting at the 49 minute mark. 

https://youtu.be/7LYRUOd_QoM

Twenty-Plus Errors, Fabrications, And Distortions In Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/30/twenty-plus-errors-fabrications-and-distortions/203480

TIME: Schweizer Offered "No Indication Of Hillary Clinton's Personal Involvement In, Or Even Knowledge Of, The Deliberations." A TIME report
debunked Schweizer's Rosatom/Uranium One conspiracy by explaining that
it is "based on little evidence." To the contrary, the
publication reported that an "official involved in the process said
Clinton had nothing to do with the decision":

The suggestion of outside influence over U.S. decisionmaking is based
on little evidence -- the allegations are presented as questions rather
than proof. The deal's approval was the result of an extensive
interagency process that required the assent of at least nine different
officials and agencies. A former State Department official who
participated in the deal's approval told TIME that Clinton did not weigh
in on the uranium sale one way or the other, and her campaign calls the
allegations in the book "absurd conspiracy theories."

[...]

The State Department's role in approving the deal was part of an
extensive bureaucratic process, and the chapter offers no indication of
Hillary Clinton's personal involvement in, or even knowledge of, the
deliberations. State has just one vote on the nine-member committee,
which also includes the departments of Defense, Treasury and Energy.
Disagreements are traditionally handled at the staff level, and if they
are not resolved, they are escalated to deputies at the relevant
agencies. If the deputies can't resolve the dispute, the issues can be
elevated to the Cabinet Secretary level and, if needed, to the President
for a decision. The official chairman of CFIUS is the Treasury
Secretary, not the Secretary of State.

[...]

One official involved in the process said Clinton had nothing to do
with the decision in the Uranium One case. Jose Hernandez, who as former
Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs
was the State Department's principal representative on the committee,
rejected the notion that Clinton's foundation ties had any bearing on
the deal. "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS
matter," he told TIME. A spokesperson for Hillary for America, Josh
Schwerin, also attacked the suggestions made in the book. The
transaction "went through the usual process and the official responsible
for managing CFIUS reviews has stated that the Secretary did not
intervene with him," Schwerin says, "This book is twisting previously
known facts into absurd conspiracy theories."

The NYT doesn't consider the Uranium One issue a fabrication.    The Clintons should either stay out of elective office or run a global foundation that takes millions from shady nations, corporations and creepy individuals, not both. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Clinton Cash: Brought to you by Swift Boat Veterans for Drill Baby Drill

max_weisenfeld said:

lord_pabulum said:

max_weisenfeld said:

lord_pabulum said:

As far as treason, I think the key is personal server/emails versus government server/emails 

I think you have no idea what the definition of treason is.

And if you did you would enlighten

Try reading the thread: 

LOST said:

    Article III, 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.

I did.  But I don't see where Trump or Russia has declared war on the United States.  So if you would enlighten

There doesn't appear to be an exception for sarcasm, which is what Trump is now claiming.   I'm afraid we're going to have to execute him and his family and turn his belongings over to the state.   Wait... sorry.... I was channeling Trump.

I didn't think that what Trump said would have any effect on him, since nothing else has. But, and this might just be a case of seeing what you want to see, I think that it has. He and his team are certainly circling the wagons.

dave said:

The NYT doesn't consider the Uranium One issue a fabrication.    The Clintons should either stay out of elective office or run a global foundation that takes millions from shady nations, corporations and creepy individuals, not both. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

I don't see anything there that undermines Jamie's list of bullet points. And the article he cites doesn't say the issue is a fabrication -- it says that the argument against Clinton relies on fabrications.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.

dave said:

There doesn't appear to be an exception for sarcasm, which is what Trump is now claiming.   I'm afraid we're going to have to execute him and his family and turn his belongings over to the state.   Wait... sorry.... I was channeling Trump.

As president of the United States, you need to be measured in your comments and actions. You can't say things like Trump,said whether "sarcastic" or not. That's part of the problem. He's a loose cannon.

Sarcasm rarely translates well.   For Trump or, apparently, me.

Sadly, we live in too literal a world for sarcasm. We are all turning into Germans. 

bramzzoinks said:

Sadly, we live in too literal a world for sarcasm. We are all turning into Germans. 

Hence the need for emoticons on MOL.

Can someone please give bramzzoinks some drachenfutter? 

I suppose Russia could have taken Reagan's quip "We begin bombing in five minutes" as an act of war

lord_pabulum said:

I suppose Russia could have taken Reagan's quip "We begin bombing in five minutes" as an act of war

A lot of people at the time thought it was a pretty bad remark.  Of course, Reagan said this when he thought nobody was listening.

dave said:

Can someone please give bramzzoinks some drachenfutter? 

Is...is that some kind of hot dog?

"Putin and I were stablemates?" What the heck does that mean?

GL2 said:

"Putin and I were stablemates?" What the heck does that mean?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/12/worl-photo-caption-contest-shirtless-putin_n_3263512.html

GL2 said:

"Putin and I were stablemates?" What the heck does that mean?

 

He means they were held in a TV-program's green room together. I kid you not. That's why he thinks he knows Russia and will "get along" with Putin.

shoshannah said:

GL2 said:

"Putin and I were stablemates?" What the heck does that mean?

 

He means they were held in a TV-program's green room together. I kid you not. That's why he thinks he knows Russia and will "get along" with Putin.

He made the statement during the fourth debate, implying that they were in the green room at the same time for a 60 Minutes episode. He later reversed himself when critics said he and Putin were interviewed in different countries for the 60 Minutes show.

GL2 said:

"Putin and I were stablemates?" What the heck does that mean?

 

I don't know.

But, people have needs. We should not be judgmental when their needs are special.

cramer said:

GL2 said:

"Putin and I were stablemates?" What the heck does that mean?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/12/worl-photo-caption-contest-shirtless-putin_n_3263512.html

Thanks. Now, please help me erase the image of the two shirtless stablemates. My brain is nauseous.