HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » 'There is no other word f...

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 11:35 AM

 

'There is no other word for it:' Former Bush ethics czar says FBI uncovering evidence of treason

Source: RawStory

Travis Gettys
23 Mar 2017 at 10:00 ET

The former ethics lawyer for George W. Bush believes the FBI investigation into the Trump campaigns alleged ties to Russia has uncovered evidence of treason.

Richard Painter, who joined a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of President Donald Trumps foreign business ties, tweeted a link late Wednesday to a McClatchy report on a federal investigation into whether U.S. right-wing websites coordinated with Russian operatives to attack Hillary Clinton.

(The) FBI uncovering evidence of treason, Painter said. There is no other word for it.

Painter also agreed with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that an independent commission or select committee was needed to investigate possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/there-is-no-other-word-for-it-former-bush-ethics-czar-says-fbi-uncovering-evidence-of-treason/



Dagnabbit! If I'd known this was gonna be in Greatest Threads, I'd have dressed better when I posted it! As it was, I was sitting around in my boxers!

62 replies, 17445 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 62 replies Author Time Post
Reply 'There is no other word for it:' Former Bush ethics czar says FBI uncovering evidence of treason (Original post)
Grizzled Ol Granddad Mar 2017 OP
ffr Mar 2017 #1
Sculpin Beauregard Mar 2017 #2
UpInArms Mar 2017 #3
mobeau69 Mar 2017 #4
Snotcicles Mar 2017 #10
milestogo Mar 2017 #5
truebluegreen Mar 2017 #6
tenorly Mar 2017 #14
yurbud Mar 2017 #34
C Moon Mar 2017 #7
dchill Mar 2017 #17
denbot Mar 2017 #8
calimary Mar 2017 #50
Julian Englis Mar 2017 #9
ffr Mar 2017 #11
FakeNoose Mar 2017 #20
niyad Mar 2017 #12
dchill Mar 2017 #18
defacto7 Mar 2017 #13
SleeplessinSoCal Mar 2017 #15
FakeNoose Mar 2017 #21
Crabby Appleton Mar 2017 #25
KingCharlemagne Mar 2017 #26
jmowreader Mar 2017 #28
SleeplessinSoCal Mar 2017 #35
ColemanMaskell Mar 2017 #36
SleeplessinSoCal Mar 2017 #46
dixiegrrrrl Mar 2017 #42
SleeplessinSoCal Mar 2017 #45
DeeDeeNY Mar 2017 #57
FailureToCommunicate Mar 2017 #16
Grizzled Ol Granddad Mar 2017 #40
FailureToCommunicate Mar 2017 #44
LiberalLovinLug Mar 2017 #19
Orrex Mar 2017 #22
HopeAgain Mar 2017 #23
Orrex Mar 2017 #24
ColemanMaskell Mar 2017 #38
KingCharlemagne Mar 2017 #27
Crash2Parties Mar 2017 #41
dchill Mar 2017 #29
LanternWaste Mar 2017 #30
C_U_L8R Mar 2017 #31
SunSeeker Mar 2017 #32
KewlKat Mar 2017 #33
Oak2004 Mar 2017 #37
ColemanMaskell Mar 2017 #39
RainCaster Mar 2017 #52
Oak2004 Mar 2017 #55
ColemanMaskell Mar 2017 #58
Igel Mar 2017 #61
ColemanMaskell Mar 2017 #62
ColemanMaskell Mar 2017 #60
Kablooie Mar 2017 #43
SleeplessinSoCal Mar 2017 #47
Kennah Mar 2017 #48
calimary Mar 2017 #49
phleshdef Mar 2017 #51
ColemanMaskell Mar 2017 #53
cstanleytech Mar 2017 #54
Mc Mike Mar 2017 #56
enid602 Mar 2017 #59

Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 11:37 AM

1. Get thee to the greatest thread section



TREASONOUS REPUBLICANS. There's no way to sugarcoat it folks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 11:40 AM

2. AMEN!!!

Sing it loud!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 11:48 AM

3. LOCK 'EM UP!

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 11:50 AM

4. Love me some Painter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mobeau69 (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 12:32 PM

10. Me too. Quirky lovable old bastage. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 11:57 AM

5. Bush ethics is an oxymoron.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 12:00 PM

6. "former ethics lawyer for George W Bush"

 

One of those who greenlighted torture?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 12:49 PM

14. It's a little like being rejected by the Ku Klux Klan - for being a bigot.

Which some in the Trump regime would be, no doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 03:43 PM

34. maybe it means he was an ethical lawyer BEFORE he worked for Bush...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 12:08 PM

7. This whole thing is so unbelievable: that so many Republicans would put themselves and/or party

before their own country—just for power and money.
...and think they wouldn't get caught.
I agree: throw them in a cell—forever. They're never going to learn to be a part of our society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 01:40 PM

17. I think they should be most proud that they can't even select...

a loyal American as their nominee. I guess treason in the service of avarice is no vice. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 12:08 PM

8. I'll kick and rec.

Imagine if this was happening to a Democratic President, ya' think there might be a Independent Special Prosecutor seated by now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denbot (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 11:34 PM

50. Hell, if this were Hillary, never mind any Independent Special Prosecutor.

They'd be busy building a gallows in the middle of the Washington Mall. And offering pre-sale tickets already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 12:15 PM

9. Link to Painter's tweet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Julian Englis (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 12:32 PM

11. Was that bad?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Julian Englis (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 01:55 PM

20. When you lie down with dogs

... you get up with fleas.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 12:33 PM

12. it was hard getting past "ethics lawyer for bush" to the article.

welcome to du, gog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 01:44 PM

18. Well, we know he needed one, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 12:47 PM

13. Considering the pain and death they've caused

push the consequences to their fullest extent.

For it to be treason, war would have to be defined to include cyber warfare, our relationship with Russia would have to be defined as in a state of war, or there would have to be a redefining of the constitution or an amendment to it. There would be years of hashing it out but considering the nature of the attack on our democracy I wouldn't doubt that it's time to reset the definitions. New times, new words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 01:30 PM

15. I was told treason is only applied to the military. But con man may broaden the definition.

And take a whole lot of other cons with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SleeplessinSoCal (Reply #15)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 01:58 PM

21. What about the Rosenbergs?

Convicted of treason, not in the military.

The Cold War changed everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FakeNoose (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 02:29 PM

25. The Rosenbergs were charged with espionage, not treason

and convicted of espionage.

You don't need to be in the military to be charged with treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FakeNoose (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 02:29 PM

26. Sorry to burst your bubble. The Rosenbergs were convicted of

 

Espionage, NOT TREASON!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FakeNoose (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 02:33 PM

28. The Rosenbergs were convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Espionage, not treason

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FakeNoose (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 05:44 PM

35. can't recall if it was on Rachel Maddow wbere that info came from.

But you're right about the Rosenbergs. It's like the law only applies to certain people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FakeNoose (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 06:18 PM

36. Treason definition cut-and-paste, + Rosenbergs espionage 1951 not treason

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2381

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.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason

Treason
The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies,aid and comfort has been given.

The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of disloyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, JULIUS AND ETHEL ROSENBERG were convicted of espionage, in1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Reply #36)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 10:35 PM

46. Thank you. However, We need a new clause.

Russia is an adversary intent on diminishing our standing in the world. And many in this administration have opted to throw their allegiance with Russia over the DEMOCRATIC Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SleeplessinSoCal (Reply #15)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 09:20 PM

42. Nope..it is in the Constitution pertaining to impeachment. n/t

Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that

"The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."


Note: INCLUDES ... "Vice President, and all civil Officers"
basically those who had to take an oath to be in the office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #42)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 10:30 PM

45. I am trying to retrace where the idea that treason only pertained to the military came from.

It was a liberal person I believe. It may have been on Bill Maher.

In searching I found this to completely confound us.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/52791-is-the-us-military-constitutionally-obligated-to-arrest-obama-for-treason

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #42)

Fri Mar 24, 2017, 07:15 AM

57. Does not seem to apply to Republicans

Bush/Cheney were immune from outing a CIA agent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 01:37 PM

16. Welcome Grizzled !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 08:08 PM

40. Thanks

 

But aren't you that darn kid who throws snowballs at my house, even in July? While I grudgingly admire your ability to keep perfect spheres in a frozen state year-round, I'm still gonna git ya!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Reply #40)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 10:24 PM

44. Just try and catch me gezzer...

![Snowball Fight - Elf]()

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 01:52 PM

19. They finally used the T word

Its about time someone did

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 02:01 PM

22. But DU has repeatedly told me that it's not treason

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 02:20 PM

23. Depending on what actions are proven, it would be interesting to see the possible charges...

Is Russia an "enemy?" If not, how about the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or the Espionage Act of 1917?

Is it espionage since it was directed against a party rather than the government?

Is it conspiracy to overthrow the Government even though the government was still chosen by an election?

No doubt it is illegal to hack into emails, but I am not sure whether it "legally" (morally and ethically is a different matter) amounts to treason, sedition or espionage. I'm certainly no expert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 02:25 PM

24. Yeah, I don't care if he's ousted because of unpaid parking tickets

Whatever it takes we must get rid of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #24)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 06:29 PM

38. DJT is a nightmare come true, but -- Pence? Paul Ryan? Is that a path forward?

My hope is that the FBI investigation turns up broad enough evidence to take out a lot of Republicons in one purge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 02:31 PM

27. I prefer "Fraud" on the people of the United States (and

 

that old warhorse from Tricky DIck's day "Abuse of Power"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 08:24 PM

41. Yeah, technially treason can only be in wartime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 02:34 PM

29. Kick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 02:34 PM

30. Painter will get a serious finger-wagging

 

Painter should get a serious finger-wagging from resident language proselytizers righteously instructing us on appropriate usage due to their most sincere concern that a word used on an informal message board is of very, very critical importance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 02:35 PM

31. It seems Republicans are having a bit of a crisis

Who are they? What do they stand for?
It seems that most of their horde has run off the Trump cliff
while the rest are left standing there with out a clue.
Unfortunately, most of this is in their hands.
What's it going to be? Cliff or no cliff?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 02:38 PM

32. Of course it is. It was obvious to anyone paying attention since the platform change at the RNC. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 03:24 PM

33. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 06:23 PM

37. That's it, exactly

I know there was talk in the media that "treason" was too strong a word, that very few people had ever been charged with it, that there are strict criteria in the Constitution, etc.

But I have been thinking, quite seriously: If I was a prosecutor, handed this case, what would I charge the perps with? Espionage? Probably. Espionage was part of the picture -- most easily charged as economic espionage, since the DNC is a private organization -- but that does not quite capture what has taken place. This was not an operation where Russia obtained useful intelligence for its own sake: it's one where a foreign power bought themselves some big-time sabotage of our democracy. Yuuuugh sabotage of a Constitutional democratic republic. In fact it stinks of a foreign-sponsored coup de etat.

Possession of property in aid of foreign government would cover anyone who actually handled any of the documents, but I'd still need more.

Seditious conspiracy? Maybe. It hangs on the question of what "force" means. It would depend, frankly, too much on a judge's mood. Insurrection? Perhaps. Again, there's too much interpretation of language needed here. These statutes probably need to be updated with unambiguous language for acts of information warfare, but until then I don't think I'd charge culprits under these statutes.

It's certainly a criminal conspiracy involving hacking, but that does not begin to capture the impact on our nation. It does raise the question as to whether the Trump entourage is covered under RICO -- and I would go there -- but that is still not enough to capture the impact of this on this country. Maybe, again, there is a conspiracy to deprive citizens of their civil rights -- I might go there -- but the crime is not fully captured with any of this.

There is only one crime on the books that truly fits. It's treason. 18 US 2381.

Some persons get hung up on the word "war" in that statute, but it is widely accepted today that certain forms of cyberattack rise to the level of an act of war. It would be unreasonable to argue that treason only applies to war as it was known prior to modern networking -- we don't after all limit our current understanding of what it means to wage war to cannon and muskets, either. If I had my two eyewitnesses (lean on Carter Page and some other lackey, remind them how unpleasant it is spend the rest of their lives in prison, and I might just have two), you bet that's exactly what I'd charge.

Donald J. Trump, the greatest American traitor of all time. Sad (and bad).





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oak2004 (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 06:42 PM

39. It's only war if Congress passes a formal declaration of war

But treason is a bad fit to the need here (imho) because the penalties for treason spelled out in the constitution are insufficient unless you go for the death penalty, and I'm not there yet on that, even in a case like this; plus executions make martyrs. Apart from the death penalty, treason carries 5 years plus a $10,000 fine, plus a ban on holding office thereafter. That last part is appropriate. (That's actually min 5 years + $10,000, so you could ask for a harsher sentence maybe.)

Criminal conspiracy probably carries more appropriate penalties.

But where does it say there can be only one charge? Go for multiple charges: criminal conspiracy, espionage, and sure, include treason in the list.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2381

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Reply #39)

Fri Mar 24, 2017, 12:00 AM

52. One count of treason for each US citizen plenty of years

I will be so happy when I see DFT in chains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Reply #39)

Fri Mar 24, 2017, 06:07 AM

55. I am not sure that a declared war is necessary

A hypothetical: suppose a traitor conspires to aid a foreign power to conduct a sneak attack against the United States. Would it be reasonable for their defense attorney to argue that, yes, my client absolutely did that, but since there was no declared war at that moment in time, my client is innocent?

"Levying war" requires a common sense understanding. A declaration of war rarely precedes a modern act of war, and often is not even sought anymore. War in the modern era is not a slow process conducted by horse and sailing ship, in which both parties have weeks or months to make their declarations and bring their forces to a prepared battlefield. Wars can start with surprise attacks. They can be conducted by or against non state actors. A war can be initiated and over in 20 minutes, though we all hope never to see such a war.

One of the forms a modern act of war can take is information warfare. An international consensus has formed around the idea that a cyberattack that threatens the survival of a nation and its duly constituted government is an act of war. In such a case it is possible that a act of war might not be detected for months, or even years, after an initial attack -- making it impossible for even the most ardent Constitutionalist to obtain a Declaration of War from Congress until long after war had begun, perhaps not until the war was effectively over.

The only sensible meaning of "levying war" here has to be activities pursuant to an act of war, whether or not Congress had formally declared that war. This attack, which was aimed at damaging or destroying our democracy, fits the emerging understanding of an act of war.

There isn't a lot of case law when it comes to treason. It is understandably a rarely used statute. What little there is includes cases where no declaration of war had occurred.

Absolutely more than one charge could and should be brought here. I'm seeing criminal conspiracy, economic espionage, RICO, money laundering, as obvious charges. But none of those,alone, address the real crime here, which is an attack, not on a server. nor funny business with money, nor any of the other charges. This was an attack on our nation and the principles which define us. Nothing short of treason articulates the nature of this crime.

I would not worry about the listed penalties. They are the minimums. The maximum is death. I would be astonished to see a judge sentence a convicted traitor to anything less than life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oak2004 (Reply #55)

Fri Mar 24, 2017, 09:07 AM

58. treason also includes "adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort"

Last edited Sat Mar 25, 2017, 05:41 AM - Edit history (1)

I think the sneak attack falls under "adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" so could still qualify as treason. I'm not saying war is a requirement -- somebody else said that -- I'm only saying that the constitution defines both treason and war legally. Often the legal or medical definition of a term is not the same as the commonly understood meaning.

I'll accept your idea that a judge would probably issue a life sentence, as long as he wasn't a closet Trump sympathizer.

Multiple charges are appropriate because more charges increase the chance of a conviction on at least some charge. Also that would make it more difficult for a judge to give a light sentence.

Come to think of it, without treason convictions, there could be another hurdle in the possibility of Pence pardoning any conviction(s), Gerald Ford style. Unless Pence was caught and convicted in the same net.

Another obstacle: Congress might not vote to impeach.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/War

War Open and declared conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or nations.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress alone the power to declare war.

Also, I like your idea of a money laundering charge. Had not thought of that, but definitely it fits.

So -- throw the book at them, as the saying goes. We need a case that brings down the whole network, rather than just prying out El Presidente. He's just a badly-chosen front man for the enterprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Reply #58)

Sat Mar 25, 2017, 03:42 PM

61. "Enemy".

Problem is, Russia's what it was 5 years ago. When calling it a "foe" was deemed risible. "Enemy" is a bit past that; "foe" is more easily metaphorical, one sided, or less intensive

Having Russia seem to be allied with domestic political foes makes it easier to be anti-Russia. But Putin's not really changed his tune. And the analysis a few months ago was right.

Goals: undermine the US. First goal.
Second, hurt Clinton. It's personal.
Third, help Trump.

We the people fell for 1. Willingly, eagerly, because we're all committed to "our" America. No others are acceptable. We loved the scandals involved in 2. And Russia's gone cold on Trump. Few here have noticed that Putin isn't a Trump supporter. To dispose of Trump would further goal 1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #61)

Sun Mar 26, 2017, 03:20 PM

62. I'd say Vlad supported the election of DJT, but probably does not specifically support him now

The position has changed, so the response would naturally change. Vlad wanted to avoid the situation of the US having a strong leader like HRC. Mission accomplished.

New game: Dealing with the US now. I guess Vlad might work to "dispose of" el presidente only if it was obvious that the next in line of succession looked easier to manipulate. That is not obviously true now. DJT is such a bufoon that his ineptitude would be hard to top. That's why GWB is all smiles and cheerfulness on the talk shows now - he's happy that he no longer holds his former place at the top of the heap of reviled presidents. So you'd have to go pretty far down the chain of succession to get to someone better for Vlad's purposes. It would be hard even for Vlad to implement a plan to get that many busy people into one airplane or helicopter together and arrange an accident. No, the chance of Vlad getting any situation better for him than the current one is pretty small.

There seems to be a non-zero chance that Vlad might have blackmail material on DJT, or DJT could owe him money or want permits for some building scheme in Russian territory, or could be enticed by some other business offer. So Vlad may see lots of possibilities there.

DJT seems to have one talent -- he's like an idiot-savant (sorry I can't find a polite synonym). His one talent seems to be manipulating crowds of people, like those evangelical preachers who used to travel the country putting up circus tents, putting on one-man shows, and raking in donations. At that one thing he seems to be unsurpassed. His speech even has a similar cadence to the stereotypical evangelical travelling preacher. Apart from that, he doesn't seem to be particularly capable at anything. In my opinion, of course. But if Vlad sees it the same way I do, then there would be no reason for Vlad to want to "dispose of" the man. An inept and malleable US president is the best he can reasonably hope for.

As far as foe vs enemy, it's my sense that the word foe designates any opponent, whereas the word enemy connotes feelings of animosity, possibly more so than it connotes opposition. You might be lifelong friends with someone who is currently a political foe, for example, and you might have long-standing enemies with whom you are not currently engaged in any battles or contests.

I'd say an enemy is someone you can reasonably assume would injure you if given a good chance. That definition would probably fit North Korea. It probably would not fit France, even if they happen to vote differently from the US sometimes in some international bodies. The enemy need not be a country; it can be any group of people intent on doing you damage. Certainly during the nineteen fifties Russia was widely considered an enemy. These days, in Syria, they are involved in a war where they seem to be at odds with some of the US allies, in fact I think they've actually done strikes on some groups allied with the US there. Certainly they are at odds with us on Ukraine. So they might reasonably be considered an enemy. If they interfered surreptitiously in our elections, which it seems they did, then unquestionably they can be considered an enemy.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oak2004 (Reply #55)

Sat Mar 25, 2017, 02:57 PM

60. "levying of war" might apply actually

The excerpt below quotes a Supreme Court decision seeming to indicate "levying of war" (and hence treason) might include something akin to conspiracy. Depending on how you interpret "an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose" -- suppose that might mean something more like a militia, rather than just a roomful of conspirators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason
. . .
In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."


Now, I'm curious what you think about the 2 witnesses requirement: that, apart from confession, you'd need two witnesses to each overt act?

U.S. Constitution
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.

Also from the same link previously quoted:

In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "e)very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."17) In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 10:23 PM

43. The Republicans are wearing the label proudly and openly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 10:53 PM

47. Painter on Lawrence O'Donnell NEXT! N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 10:57 PM

48. Unpresidented (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 11:29 PM

49. Welcome to DU, Grizzled Ol Granddad!

Don't worry about it! I haven't changed out of my jammies because I've been working on a research project all day. ALL DAY! And at the moment, the MSNBC evening lineup is only about half-finished. (Wonder if that's what trump's status is getting to be, too? About half-finished? They're finding evidence of TREASON? HoooooooEeeeeeee, let's hope so!)



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 11:58 PM

51. Trump makes the Bush administration look like a bastion of moral government.

 

Jesus, I never thought it could get this bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #51)

Fri Mar 24, 2017, 12:51 AM

53. Fun to see GWB on a late night show, happy as a clam not to be viewed as the super villain anymore.

Don't know what the involvement of JC is right now exactly, but, yeah, things can always get worse, sad to say.
At least, while we survive. Much worse is yet possible.

But, things can get better too; could be we bounce back up rather than, well, continue plummeting.

The FBI investigation(s) and DJT's rising disapproval ratings are encouraging. Some House Republicons are listening to their constituents and refusing to vote for the Avoidable Health Care Axe. Probably we'll get filibustering of the Gorsuck nomination, maybe even block it. NYT and Wapo subscriptions are up, FB is introducing an anti-fake-news plan involving Snopes, and the ACLU had major donations. WSJ ran an editorial highly critical of DJT's tenacious mendacity. Grass roots involvement in protests -- the women's marches, the town halls -- is higher than I remember even during the VietNam conflict. So there are some encouraging signs.

We're living through one of those chaotic tipping points they talk about in math. Interesting times.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Fri Mar 24, 2017, 01:04 AM

54. We dont need a special prosecutor thats not beholden to the Repugnants as they knew about Russias

actions months ago and stonewalled Obama when he wanted to let the American people know.
Also we need the investigation to not restrict itself to just the Trump campaign rather we need them to investigate every single avenue of who Russia was coordinating with in the US and if it leads to certain higher ups in Congress then so be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Fri Mar 24, 2017, 07:14 AM

56. Yep. It's treason. Recced, thanks.

Get some pants on, Grizz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grizzled Ol Granddad (Original post)

Fri Mar 24, 2017, 10:37 AM

59. unconstitutional

". . .a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of President Donald Trumps foreign business ties..." I've heard Trump's line of Chinese made ties described as tacky, too long and having scotch tape on the back of them, but never before have they been called unconstitutional. Oh my, this is big indeed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread