Jump to content

Did Trump commit treason today?

TexArcher

By TexArcher
in Cloak Room

 Share

Did Trump commit treason today?  

217 members have voted

  1. 1. Did Trump commit treason today?


Recommended Posts

Js1

Js1 85379

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

This was orders of magnitude worse than bowing or apologizing.  (Which Trump himself already matched long ago when he bowed and curtsied to the Saudis.). The comparison is absurd. 

I mean, I also voted "no, but close" but I'm not going to throw in a "but Obama!"

He met with Putin ALONE. And its not the first time they've had private conversations with no aides while Trump is under investigation for colluding with Putin's government. And the Oval Office meeting with the Russians.  Followed by such hits as "Putin said he didn't do it, so I believe him" and "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off."

His own staff admit they had a plan and prepared remarks before that meeting and Trump completed changed everything after the meeting to basically blowing Putin at the podium and saying he trusts him over the American IC.

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31495

Posted
Posted

Yeah, it's one thing to make nice and be courteous and even kind of friendly in sort of a fake way, which is what most POTUS do. But this, this  . . . .

 

I don't think it's treason, but it is very unseemly.  Kinda like scat pr0n is unseemly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85379

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Again, from what we know it is general treason, not Constitutional Treason.

Oliver North wasn't even convicted of treason - the bar is way too high.  As it should be, it's a very serious accusation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Again, from what we know it is general treason, not Constitutional Treason.

 

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Treasonous, perhaps.  Treacherous, definitely.

I dont think anyone has been convicted of treason for supporting a country that we weren't at war with.  

Even traitors like the Rosenbergs who gave support to the Soviet Union were convicted of espionage rather than treason. Of course the President doing this shit is a whole other level of fucked up. 

Edited by FondrenRoad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32993

Posted
Posted (edited)

Treasonous and treacherous but not treason. Ok. It's not like the definition of treasonous is "having to do with treason", the definition of treason is "betraying" one's own nation, and the definition of treacherous is "involving betrayal." Oh wait, yes it is. Stop talking around it and just say it.

He undoubtedly betrayed the United States by harming the nation's standing internationally, providing comfort to Putin in the form of strengthening his power within Russia, and publicly sided with a strongman leader of an adversarial nation over his own country's intelligence.

We do not have any information that proves him guilty of prosecutable Constitutional treason. That doesn't mean he didn't meet the more general standard of the term. And that's a good thing, it should be an absurdly high bar to be convicted of that crime.

Edited by Huckleberry
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orca of Peace

Orca of Peace 109

Posted
Posted

Trump is playing psychological game with Putin and Kim, softening them up, pretending to be on their side - to get what he wants. It's all part of his schtick and it takes some time to understand what's really going on, to catch on to the game. I get it now. It's all fluff, Trump doesn't really mean 99% of the crap he spews daily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, ERhine said:

Interestingly both names registered on May 27.

I wonder how many female names were registered as screen-names on that date.

Doris and Francis are up next.  Might as well ban them now:

http://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/search/&type=core_members&start_after=1527120000&start_before=1527638400&group[4]=1&group[3]=1&group[10]=1&group[6]=1&group[7]=1

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

I was under the impression that treason was a legal term with a well defined meaning?  People misuse legal terms all the time (e.g., referring to negligent homicide as murder, etc.), but that misuse doesn't alter the term's meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11338

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, maninblack said:


No

I'll take you at your word, but I have a hard time imagining Hannity defending Obama or Hillary had they done something even remotely similar.

For my part, I'd say if Obama or Hillary did something similar it WOULD be treason...just as it is with Trump.

Russia committed an act of war by attacking the US sovereignty.  His response would have been akin to FDR say, both sides were responsible for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
riloh05

riloh05 107

Posted
Posted

what was different about this than obama and medvedev? i am not but obam'ing, i just do not get the uproar from what i heard. lastly, trump cant give away any intel...dude spoke to putin in 140 characters. no much to give away with that type of bandwidth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32993

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I was under the impression that treason was a legal term with a well defined meaning?  People misuse legal terms all the time (e.g., referring to negligent homicide as murder, etc.), but that misuse doesn't alter the term's meaning.

Like many legal terms it also has a general non-legal meaning. Treason is legally defined differently in different nations so it obviously has to have a general definition as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32993

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, riloh05 said:

what was different about this than obama and medvedev? i am not but obam'ing, i just do not get the uproar from what i heard. lastly, trump cant give away any intel...dude spoke to putin in 140 characters. no much to give away with that type of bandwidth.

But Obama.

I am not "But Obama"ing.

Great post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Publiushorn

Publiushorn 113

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

By the Constitutional definition? I don't know but I bet he did in that private meeting. Per the Constitution it's not just levying war against the United States but also "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

By the lay definition? Absolutely. He betrayed the United States of America.

"Enemies"--for the purpose of treason--has a well understood meaning, going all the way back to the Treason Act of 1351.  For Russia to be our enemy, we'd have to be at a state of open or declared war with them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
maninblack

maninblack 7974

Posted
Posted
I'll take you at your word, but I have a hard time imagining Hannity defending Obama or Hillary had they done something even remotely similar.
For my part, I'd say if Obama or Hillary did something similar it WOULD be treason...just as it is with Trump.
Russia committed an act of war by attacking the US sovereignty.  His response would have been akin to FDR say, both sides were responsible for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Yeah because he's a partisan douchebag
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
riloh05

riloh05 107

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

But Obama.

I am not "But Obama"ing.

Great post.

i guess i am looking for some sort of smoking gun with all the barking at clouds. i just dont understand the difference, and you dont seem capable of articulating that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VRHorn

VRHorn 718

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Publiushorn said:

"Enemies"--for the purpose of treason--has a well understood meaning, going all the way back to the Treason Act of 1351.  For Russia to be our enemy, we'd have to be at a state of open or declared war with them.  

Well, if they are actively hacking our government, political parties, etc. can we say we are in an "open" cyberwar? It's a bit of a stretch, but it's not like Trump is going to ever go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war (nor would any other President, to be fair).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted

I have no idea what those pictures have to do with this. Did Clinton, Bush, or Obama at any point say to the world that they trusted Putin over their own intelligence agencies?

Look, I hate the intelligence agencies as much as the next guy, but anyone who says Putin is more trustworthy than them might not be committing actual treason, but they're extremely stupid and it's hilarious that America decided to put someone like that in the White House.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted

Assuming we are working from the man on the street definition of treason instead of the legal definition:

 

- I think I saw a guy who is a total amateur and more concerned about his own station in the world than his country's.  He does not know how to act but feels like he needs to stand up against whatever is pushing at him even if he does not understand what it is.  I think those actions happened to help Russia yesterday.  That is a little bit different from a motivation or goal standpoint from a guy going out of his way to help another country at the expense of his own (what I consider textbook treason).  

 

Basically, I saw a coward, a weakling, and a person basically incapable of performing his job more than a treasonous person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted

After having listened to more of the press conference, it is astounding the way Trump ran interference for questions aimed at Putin. It was so mindnumbingly stupid that at some point, you have to wonder if Trump has the mental capacity to even understand what treason would entail.

He clearly advanced the Russian agenda.  That's not a problem - he can advance the agenda of any country he wants, I guess.

The question is whether hurting the US agenda is a problem.  Trump's handlers would argue that the US Agenda is one and the same with Trump's agenda.

No issues. 

All we can do is vote the guy out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23475

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Look, I hate the intelligence agencies as much as the next guy, but anyone who says Putin is more trustworthy than them might not be committing actual treason, but they're extremely stupid

I hate having to agree with you.  And especially doing it on stage with VFP at a summit. Call the IC on their bullshit at every opportunity. Bite your tongue and say nice things about Vladimir Putin when necessary, call him to account when appropriate.  But call the IC out and stroke Putin's ego on a podium during a summit in a foreign country taking place a few days after 12 Russians, some military officers included, were indicted? Jesus, this is just common sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, riloh05 said:

i guess i am looking for some sort of smoking gun with all the barking at clouds. i just dont understand the difference, and you dont seem capable of articulating that.

It's been articulated countless times, in numerous posts, public statements, and articles online.  If you don't get it by now, you simply don't want to get it.  

Edited by Mojo Hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32993

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Publiushorn said:

"Enemies"--for the purpose of treason--has a well understood meaning, going all the way back to the Treason Act of 1351.  For Russia to be our enemy, we'd have to be at a state of open or declared war with them.  

This is an excellent point, what I should have included was the idea that it's possible based on what Trump discussed with Putin in private (either yesterday or previously) that Congress could consider it an act of war if they had all the details. Not in terms of lobbing bombs and sending an invading force, of course, but at some point the acts of aggression become so provocative that they must be considered acts of war.

Our historical definitions of acts of war have to be reevaluated in the modern technological age. Nations could be completely crippled without a single shot fired these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grandioso

Grandioso 2592

Posted
Posted

If Putin didn't outright blackmail Trump yesterday, he definitely repeatedly hit the raw nerve he has about having a legitimate and convincing electoral win. He probably was like, "Donald, you won the election without anyone's help. We did nothing. If America thinks that we influenced the election, it takes away from your victory. Don't let them do that!" He would have manipulated Trump's pathological need to have an untainted, unassisted win. Putin would reinforced Trump's belief that - Admitting Russian influence = Admitting that I am an illegitimate president.  

That's why Trump immediately interpretted every question about himself and his legitimacy. Listen to NYT "The Daily" podcast from today. It's interesting.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Caracara

Caracara 41

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I have no idea what those pictures have to do with this. Did Clinton, Bush, or Obama at any point say to the world that they trusted Putin over their own intelligence agencies?

Look, I hate the intelligence agencies as much as the next guy, but anyone who says Putin is more trustworthy than them might not be committing actual treason, but they're extremely stupid and it's hilarious that America decided to put someone like that in the White House.

The intel agencies don't have a perfect track record, they don't mind thousands of deaths, they crave boogiemen, and everybody on earth knows Trump believes the establishment appointees of the last 3 administrations are attacking him without evidence. And there is no evidence.  Trump's not a guy to stand on decorum.  He picks his lies, and this is a time he's not going to tell a lie.  He doesn't trust the establishment intel formed by John Brennan.  If he lied and said he trusted the agencies established by his political opponents, everyone would know he's lying. We all know our government isn't a monolith. So why fake it?   It would also be a strategic blunder, because it would cast doubt on the legitimacy of his election win.  He would make a lot of people happy, but it would be an idiot move. 

I guess if you're convinced without evidence that Putin has blackmail ammo on Trump, then maybe Putin has some kind of hand. But Trump understands leverage as well as most people, and we are giants compared to Russia.  Trump said on the RNC debate stage that he'd be willing to meet with Putin, and he's going around offering every worthwhile country a fresh deal, individually. he doesn't like dealing with unions.

He does things differently. He said he would. That's why a bunch of people voted for him. It's not treason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11338

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, riloh05 said:

what was different about this than obama and medvedev? i am not but obam'ing, i just do not get the uproar from what i heard. lastly, trump cant give away any intel...dude spoke to putin in 140 characters. no much to give away with that type of bandwidth.

I can't believe anyone could even half-way compare the two, but let me hit some high points...

  1. Medvedev isn't an evil despot who was once a KGB agent.
  2. I'm not saying Medvedev was a "good guy", but he was a reformer and at least mildly friendly toward the west...aka why Putin seized complete control
  3. What Obama did was called diplomacy.  You don't put your missiles in Kaliningrad, and we won't increase our missile defenses in Poland/Czech Rep.  What Trump did was capitulation.  What did the US get in return for Trump throwing us under the bus?  A soccer ball?

No one is saying we can't/shouldn't engage Russia in diplomacy.   But we are saying you can't just roll over like a puppy looking for a belly rub.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21818

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Viper said:

voted no, not close after I read this

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/16/trump-putin-presser-russia-disgraceful

 

 

It was dumb and tiring listening to shouts of treason every time Obama bowed to a Saudi prince or apologized for something, it's still dumb and tiring now that it's Trump.

They called Obama a traitor for being a secret Muslim born in Kenya who was secretly imposing Sharia law (mostly through "creeping" Sharia).  And don't forget his biggest traitorous crime of all, having Hussein as a middle name.  But yeah, both sides.

Edited by 'stache
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
Just now, Caracara said:

The intel agencies don't have a perfect track record, they don't mind thousands of deaths, they crave boogiemen, and everybody on earth knows Trump believes the establishment appointees of the last 3 administrations are attacking him without evidence. And there is no evidence. 

lol

Donald Jr literally released an e-mail in which he is all excited to get dirt on Hillary from the Russians. Not speculation or rumor or conspiracy, it's an e-mail released by Don Jr himself. And that's just one of dozens and dozens of obvious pieces of evidence.

Quote

I guess if you're convinced without evidence that Putin has blackmail ammo on Trump, then maybe Putin has some kind of hand. But Trump understands leverage as well as most people, and we are giants compared to Russia.  Trump said on the RNC debate stage that he'd be willing to meet with Putin, and he's going around offering every worthwhile country a fresh deal, individually. he doesn't like dealing with unions.

Russia's economy is fucking tiny compared to ours. What the hell leverage are you thinking we need?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Caracara

Caracara 41

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

lol

Donald Jr literally released an e-mail in which he is all excited to get dirt on Hillary from the Russians. Not speculation or rumor or conspiracy, it's an e-mail released by Don Jr himself. And that's just one of dozens and dozens of obvious pieces of evidence.

Russia's economy is fucking tiny compared to ours. What the hell leverage are you thinking we need?

I don't know if junior's excitement amounts to all that.   The "getting dirt" malfeasance goes around. Certainly from Trump's POV. 

Russia has influence in Iran, for starters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29355

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Again, from what we know it is general treason, not Constitutional Treason.

This. It's treason in the sense that it's a clear betrayal of our country to help a hostile foreign power, but it's not the type of behavior for which one can be convicted of treason under the Constitutional definition. That distinction doesn't mean that what he did (and is still doing) isn't just as bad as Constitutional treason, and the potential criminal punishment may very well be the same.

The Rosenbergs weren't tried for treason, they were tried for espionage. They were still executed when they were found guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...