That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
From the reporter who asked the question to Trump:LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:08 pm It's better than that. The official line is that he was responding to a different question.
Hours later, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said that Mr. Trump was answering a different question, and that “we believe the threat still exists.”
Jeeeeeeeeasssus.
Is this even a thing the President has any power over? I mean, I suppose he could allow the Russians into the country, but given the Constitutional protections around even questioning a “suspect” I would think the American citizen’s lawyer would refuse to allow his client to speak to Russians. Even in this partisan time I can’t imagine the most conservative judge in the country forcing the interrogation and I’d think the Supreme Court would be an immediate, unanimous 9-0 fuck you to the administration that tried.Hamlet3145 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:50 pm So, this is a thing now:
White House says Trump to discuss allowing Russia to question US citizens
Let's not forget that Putin has lots and lots of Nukes and that he seems like the kind of guy who might just use them if he had to. He may not be able to bully the UK or France, but the rest of Europe is probably very reluctant to provoke him in any way.hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:02 pm That article lead to this fascinating precursor. It's chock full of stuff I never realized. For example:
Putin has a weak hand and is always bluffing. Just by meeting him, you’re giving him a huge gift. The President of the United States is the most important and powerful person in the free world; in contrast, the President of Russia is practically nobody. The Russian economy is roughly equivalent to the state of New York’s. The Russian military budget is 90% less than that of the United States, on par with the U.K. or France. All of Putin’s geopolitical theatrics are him showing his weakness. At best, he’s got a pair of twos. The United States has a full house.
So, are we at the level of the president engaging in just a wee bit of treason yet?Hamlet3145 wrote:So, this is a thing now:
White House says Trump to discuss allowing Russia to question US citizens
I don't think it'd be easy but continual attacks on our elections seems like it could be construed as an act of war. Now is this the best way to remove him? Not even close. A non-craven Congress could have likely booted him some time ago for emoluments violations or some ethical violation.Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:54 am The T word is being thrown around a lot, and certainly Trump's a traitor in the colloquial sense that he is betraying his country on an epic scale. However, the Constitution is clear that treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. It would take some legal gymnastics to define Russia as such. There are legitimate reasons for impeachment, but treason isn't one.
Heh. I posted about this in another thread at the exact same minute.
Two weeks before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump was shown highly classified intelligence indicating that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election.
The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top-secret source close to Mr. Putin, who had described to the C.I.A. how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation.
It's incredibly damning that he has kept up his pretensions of doubt and denial about all this. There has never been any doubt.The Jan. 6, 2017, meeting, held at Trump Tower, was a prime example. He was briefed that day by John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director; James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence; and Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and the commander of United States Cyber Command.
The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, was also there; after the formal briefing, he privately told Mr. Trump about the “Steele dossier.” That report, by a former British intelligence officer, included uncorroborated salacious stories of Mr. Trump’s activities during a visit to Moscow, which he denied.
According to nearly a dozen people who either attended the meeting with the president-elect or were later briefed on it, the four primary intelligence officials described the streams of intelligence that convinced them of Mr. Putin’s role in the election interference.
They included stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee that had been seen in Russian military intelligence networks by the British, Dutch and American intelligence services. Officers of the Russian intelligence agency formerly known as the G.R.U. had plotted with groups like WikiLeaks on how to release the email stash.
And ultimately, several human sources had confirmed Mr. Putin’s own role.
He's not in love with Russia over this. He's in denial because he feels it tarnishes his personal biggest accomplishment. If he admits that the Russians helped him, then he's admitting that he's not loved and adored by all like he believes.
"Problem is, when you touch a hot stove, it burns. But I'll touch it anyway!"The Fake News Media is going Crazy! They make up stories without any backup, sources or proof. Many of the stories written about me, and the good people surrounding me, are total fiction. Problem is, when you complain you just give them more publicity. But I’ll complain anyway!
"without any sources"?!? The source for much of your troubles is from your own fucking mouth.hepcat wrote:My favorite Trumpism from this morning's twitter storm from manbaby:
"Problem is, when you touch a hot stove, it burns. But I'll touch it anyway!"The Fake News Media is going Crazy! They make up stories without any backup, sources or proof. Many of the stories written about me, and the good people surrounding me, are total fiction. Problem is, when you complain you just give them more publicity. But I’ll complain anyway!
God, what an idiot.
Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:54 am The T word is being thrown around a lot, and certainly Trump's a traitor in the colloquial sense that he is betraying his country on an epic scale. However, the Constitution is clear that treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. It would take some legal gymnastics to define Russia as such. There are legitimate reasons for impeachment, but treason isn't one.
The Constitution is decidedly unclear on whether treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. The "or" is key here, because you could argue that the US has "Enemies" (whatever that is supposed to mean) that we are not at open war with. In such a case "adhering" to them or "giving them Aid and Comfort" would constitute treason. In fact, that might be a more logical reading, as it seems dubious that the founders intended to give someone a pass on giving aid and comfort to a hostile country right up until a formal declaration of war.US Constitution wrote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Implication: Everything you read about me fromThe Fake News Media is going Crazy! They make up stories without any backup, sources or proof. Many of the stories written about me, and the good people surrounding me, are total fiction
Implication: All food sold from Big Box Super Market will cause you to die from E coli.Big Box Super Markets are going Crazy. They sell produce that has caused E Coli. Many people have died from E Coli.
This is wrong, or at least only a tiny piece of the puzzle. He was slovenly appeasing Putin well before the election every happened. He's been working in tandem with Russia all along. OF COURSE he knows-- and has always known-- that Russia was interfering. He supported and helped it. His relationship with Russia goes back decades... this goes much deeper than just feeling insecure about his election victory.Paingod wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:42 amHe's not in love with Russia over this. He's in denial because he feels it tarnishes his personal biggest accomplishment. If he admits that the Russians helped him, then he's admitting that he's not loved and adored by all like he believes.
TRUMP SMASH ELECTION! TRUMP NOT NEED PUNY RUSSIANS! TRUMP BEST! EVERYBODY LOVE TRUMP!
I would say that says nothing to indicate that treason is only applicable to countries with which the United States is at war. The "war" is only there as saying that levying war against the United States (e.g., rebelling or joining up with foreign adversaries) is clearly treasons. Specifically, what that clause is doing is limiting the *types of acts* that can be labeled treason. That is, you can only be charged with treason if you:ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:40 amKraken wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:54 am The T word is being thrown around a lot, and certainly Trump's a traitor in the colloquial sense that he is betraying his country on an epic scale. However, the Constitution is clear that treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. It would take some legal gymnastics to define Russia as such. There are legitimate reasons for impeachment, but treason isn't one.The Constitution is decidedly unclear on whether treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. The "or" is key here, because you could argue that the US has "Enemies" (whatever that is supposed to mean) that we are not at open war with. In such a case "adhering" to them or "giving them Aid and Comfort" would constitute treason. In fact, that might be a more logical reading, as it seems dubious that the founders intended to give someone a pass on giving aid and comfort to a hostile country right up until a formal declaration of war.US Constitution wrote: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 suppose that if one is going to the point of actually participating in war against the United States, you are by definition also giving aid to enemies of the United States, so where that clause applies may be moot to some degree.ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:18 pm I read the "Aid and Comfort" as applicable only to the "adhering" part, as in you adhere to the enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort. Otherwise, I agree with your reading and don't think War is prerequisite to the adhering element.
That's not to say I agree at this point that what Trump has done is technically treason. I do categorize Russia as an Enemy, because I think the US can have enemies that we are not at war with, and we certainly seem to have adverse interests to Russia. I'm not sure that I'd say that Trump's words with respect to Russia rise to the level of adherence/Aid & Comfort without tangible actions to match them. If words alone were sufficient to commit treason, then any protestor who spoke against the Vietnamese conflict, for example, would be potentially guilty.
Now, Trump may have committed some actions that would rise to the level of adherence, but I'll let Bill Mueller sort that out. There's an argument to be made, I guess, that Trump's position gives his words more weight than a mere protestor, and thus could rise to the level of treason. Maybe some "light" treason.
(That was a long way to go for that reference.)
It seems to be a bit of a gray area.El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:59 amI would say that says nothing to indicate that treason is only applicable to countries with which the United States is at war. The "war" is only there as saying that levying war against the United States (e.g., rebelling or joining up with foreign adversaries) is clearly treasons. Specifically, what that clause is doing is limiting the *types of acts* that can be labeled treason. That is, you can only be charged with treason if you:ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:40 amKraken wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:54 am The T word is being thrown around a lot, and certainly Trump's a traitor in the colloquial sense that he is betraying his country on an epic scale. However, the Constitution is clear that treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. It would take some legal gymnastics to define Russia as such. There are legitimate reasons for impeachment, but treason isn't one.The Constitution is decidedly unclear on whether treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. The "or" is key here, because you could argue that the US has "Enemies" (whatever that is supposed to mean) that we are not at open war with. In such a case "adhering" to them or "giving them Aid and Comfort" would constitute treason. In fact, that might be a more logical reading, as it seems dubious that the founders intended to give someone a pass on giving aid and comfort to a hostile country right up until a formal declaration of war.US Constitution wrote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
(1) Wage war against the United States; OR
(2) "Adhere" to the enemies of the United States (presumably pledging loyalty to or something along those lines).
The "aid and comfort" clause is a little confusing; I guess I would read that as applying to acts (1) and (2) - basically in either waging war or adhering to enemies, you must give "aid and comfort" to the enemies. That would probably mean something like doing something material to aid them (as opposed to, say, passively supporting).
To charge someone with treason you would need to define a country or group as an "enemy" of the United States, but I see no basis in that clause for reading war as a prerequisite to the definition of an enemy.
That definition just shifts the vagueness from "enemy" to "hostilities." At least half of the world has hostile intent, but "hostilities" is generally understood to mean warfare. The US has foes, it has adversaries, it has competitors, it has rivals. Russia is all of these. But they don't rise to the status of enemies without armed conflict. Yes, attacking our elections is a hostile act, but we are not engaged in hostilities. If Russia were an actual bona fide enemy, they would not be ferrying our astronauts to the ISS.According to 50 USCS § 2204 [Title 50. War and National Defense; Chapter 39. Spoils of War], enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States;
(3) the term "person" means
(A) any natural person;
(B) any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity; and
(C) any organization, association, or group.
That definition is specific to that Chapter 39 (Spoils of War), and would not apply to interpretation of the Treason clause of the Constitution (see here.Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:26 pmAccording to 50 USCS § 2204 [Title 50. War and National Defense; Chapter 39. Spoils of War], enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States;
(3) the term "person" means
(A) any natural person;
(B) any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity; and
(C) any organization, association, or group.
What sucks is that is the right call. OtOH, the GOP needed to step to stop that meeting. Fixing the problem they created by abusing (and setting precedent to further abuse) the scope of the power is the right way. They're going to be right most the time when they don't abuse their powers to fix the messes they are creating by being wrong virtually every other time. Which is just example after example after example of why they need to go.Defiant wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:16 pm GOP votes down Dem motion to subpoena interpreter from Trump, Putin meeting
Is it an abuse of power? From the House maybe, but what if the Senate, that has jurisdication over treaties, asked? I know it’s not a treaty, but Trump is implying at least that some deals were discussed. In addition, Congress is supposed to have oversight of the executive branch. Shouldn’t that include knowing what the President did or did not do in official US business? In discussions with his advisors, sure it makes sense to deny Congress. But I’ve not seen any persuasive argument that the Executive branch should be able to withold anything official from the Congress. However, my reading is limited.LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:26 pmWhat sucks is that is the right call. OtOH, the GOP needed to step to stop that meeting. Fixing the problem they created by abusing (and setting precedent to further abuse) the scope of the power is the right way. They're going to be right most the time when they don't abuse their powers to fix the messes they are creating by being wrong virtually every other time. Which is just example after example after example of why they need to go.Defiant wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:16 pm GOP votes down Dem motion to subpoena interpreter from Trump, Putin meeting
I'm probably not clear.Fitzy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:39 pm Is it an abuse of power? From the House maybe, but what if the Senate, that has jurisdication over treaties, asked? I know it’s not a treaty, but Trump is implying at least that some deals were discussed. In addition, Congress is supposed to have oversight of the executive branch. Shouldn’t that include knowing what the President did or did not do in official US business? In discussions with his advisors, sure it makes sense to deny Congress. But I’ve not seen any persuasive argument that the Executive branch should be able to withold anything official from the Congress. However, my reading is limited.
I do think that part of the mess we are in comes from the strengthening of the executive branch at the expense of Congress.
If Trump was carrying his cell phone, sure it possible, heh.Defiant wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:24 am Is it possible our intelligence services listened in on this? I mean, I would imagine spying on someone like Putin would be within their purview. Even if, normally, you would think they could get information about a meeting where the US was one half of the negotiations without resorting to espionage.
