It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The NYT should NOT release the name of the anonymous OP-ED writer

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

Message of confident leadership from President Trump tonight.
twitter.com...




posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

What balderdash, the seditious author holds McStain up as a beacon of valor!?


And in my opinion, the moment the author included that they were a resistance against trump is the moment they sealed their fate as a treasonous lawbreaker subject to the laws we all face.
edit on 6-9-2018 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust


Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
I’m draining the Swamp, and the Swamp is trying to fight back. Don’t worry, we will win!

12:51 AM · Sep 6, 2018



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Thanks for the link, that is unacceptable for the government to go after journalists like that. That put a huge stain on the administration IMO, something they can't afford.

At least with this twofer right here (book and op-ed), we will get to see if that trend continues.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher


And in my opinion, the moment the author included that they were a resistance against trump is the moment they sealed their fate as a treasonous lawbreaker subject to the laws we all face.


Treason would mean that they were aiding and embedding a foreign enemy that we're at war with.

It's the most serious crime that people have rarely been charged with.

You're using it for hyperbole, but I'm sure you'll double down and run with it like the rest full well knowing now it doesn't fit..... "WE'LL MAKE IT FIT!" Keep running with that and it gives credence to people with the idea that Trump supporters are OK with him abusing powers.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: theantediluvian

Thanks for the link, that is unacceptable for the government to go after journalists like that. That put a huge stain on the administration IMO, something they can't afford.

At least with this twofer right here (book and op-ed), we will get to see if that trend continues.
Difference being, those journalist may have actually had somethong to report.

In this case, given recent events, its all part of an agenda and that is what's at issue here, weaponized propoganda to the highest tier.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: thepixelpusher


And in my opinion, the moment the author included that they were a resistance against trump is the moment they sealed their fate as a treasonous lawbreaker subject to the laws we all face.


Treason would mean that they were aiding and embedding a foreign enemy that we're at war with.

It's the most serious crime that people have rarely been charged with.

You're using it for hyperbole, but I'm sure you'll double down and run with it like the rest full well knowing now it doesn't fit..... "WE'LL MAKE IT FIT!" Keep running with that and it gives credence to people with the idea that Trump supporters are OK with him abusing powers.
Dude, that's not true and seeing you state that multiple times is BS.

Treason is subversion of the state, with which you mean to everthrow a duly elected person.

Actual definition,

Definition of treason
1 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
2 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery

-- Hmmm, Anon Op-Ed, subversion, praising McCain and liberal media (sovereign allegience). Oh, betrayel of a trust, OFFICE OF THE POTUS.

Last but not least, EVERY SOLDIER IN THE ARMED FORCES knows it well.

If anything, this is more along the lines of sedition.
edit on 6-9-2018 by Arnie123 because: Facts



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

Webster dictionary isn't how we enforce laws.

Its outlined in the constitution in article III


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.


I know it's inconvenient this time, and you'd rather enforce laws based off of the dictionary when it involves Trump, but we have laws to protect us.

When presidents go against laws it sets precedence for others to do the same.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123
Actual definition...


Here's the actual actual definition from the Constitution:


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.


And the law Congress passed:


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.


Notice 'war' in the Constitution has a capital 'w'. Who we at war with? Congress hasn't declared war since December of 1941. An Op-Ed, while Cheetolini may find it war-like, is not the definition of war or treason as laid out in that piece of paper those dudes signed.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Lmfao, both of you are right AND WRONG.

The inception of war would define treason as those aiding and abiding a foreign enemy, to which we then refer to them as TRAITORS.

Furthermore, Traitors can commit treason to any group of people of POLITICAL PARTY.

Additionally,

"Our Constitution does not actually spell out what the act of treason consists of, it simply defines what the government cannot do about it. It also adds in the line about needing two witnesses to the act, in order to prove it beyond a doubt."

Examples:


John Brown, abolishist.

Was found guilty of Treason, among two other counts and sentenced to Hang.

Don't be so quick to pin it to just WAR, that would be naive my fellow users.
en.m.wikipedia.org...(abolitionist)



edit on 6-9-2018 by Arnie123 because: Facts



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

We'll play with the new goalposts.

The article was an opinion. There was no classified information in it, someone merely used freedom of speech.

Good luck having that stick in court for treason or sedition.

BTW John Brown led a group of armed men onto a federal arsenal.

Whoever wrote the OP-ED used words.
edit on 6-9-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy



So while the left gleefully masturbates over this fan-fiction that the NYT put out, just remember that the identity of ANY even PERCEIVED whistle-blower or leaker deserves the protection of anonymity because who knows who might want to leak under a communist Warren or Sanders regime!


What if this isn't "fan fiction"?

What if the very things you fear of happening under a communist "regime" are potentially taking place under Trump's presidency and you are so blinded by your own ignorance that you simply dismiss it as "fan fiction"?

No. The NYT should not out the writer of the piece, but the writer themselves should come out and stand by what they have said. Until these sorts of people are willing to stand up for what they allegedly believe, and stop hiding behind the media, it only serves to embolden a president, a party and a mindset of people that rely on conspiracy instead of facts.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Plus there wasn't anything revealed to deserve the Reality Winner treatment, which is why there should be no problem at all. This is cloak and dagger stuff with the intent to foster blind trust towards an increasingly fascist gubmint.

Not buying this without something tangible, Q-Anon Captain America...

*crickets'*



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Arnie123

We'll play with the new goalposts.

The article was an opinion. There was no classified information in it, someone merely used freedom of speech.

Good luck having that stick in court for treason or sedition.

BTW John Brown led a group of armed men onto a federal arsenal.

Whoever wrote the OP-ED used words.
I'm not advocated that, so you can cut the broadstroke BS out, I merely pointing out that Yes, Treason is still a very real and valid thing on the domestic plane.

The article is much more then opinion, its supposedly from a senior official and the things discussed and done are down right sedition, because that's what it is. Its also at the epicenter of how the nation is operated and handled, that's why the big commotion.

I'll actually put money on Sedition, though Treason wouldn't get far.

The Op-Ed can only be viewed as a slanderous piece from an inner circle position, resulting in sedition or just a slanderous hit piece by the lying NYT, of which neither outcome is good.

Either or, a National Security investigation will get to the bottom of it 😌



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123


If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)


That is the legal definition of sedition of US. I guess it really comes down to a person's definition of "by force."

Personally I don't think removing papers from the President's desk to fits the definition.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123
Meh..I'll follow your lead in this one.



Of course you will follow. You're a major right wing trump supporting echo chamber.
Have to follow people of like mind I guess.

Hilarious.

If he would have said the opposite you would have spewed right along with it.

Face it. You picked a side. Your opinions follow the people on the same side. I suspected it for a while but now I know for sure.
#cantthinkformyself



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

What was slanderous? It was all opinion. It's not like they were accusing him of touching kids which people do on the right every day (to people on the left under the pizza stuff).

This was a piece saying they liked and supported Trump in many ways, and blocks him in ways they are concerned.

Trump getting elected doesn't mean he gets to do whatever he wants, that's a dictator.

This was an opinion piece and nothing more.
edit on 6-9-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: Arnie123
Meh..I'll follow your lead in this one.



Of course you will follow. You're a major right wing trump supporting echo chamber.
Have to follow people of like mind I guess.

Hilarious.

If he would have said the opposite you would have spewed right along with it.

Face it. You picked a side. Your opinions follow the people on the same side. I suspected it for a while but now I know for sure.
#cantthinkformyself


???

Not sure if you followed, but the poster agreed with me to basically go against the grain and not just blindly follow Trump on this one.

Don't tell me that you've never agreed with other members before, have you?



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: Arnie123
Meh..I'll follow your lead in this one.



Of course you will follow. You're a major right wing trump supporting echo chamber.
Have to follow people of like mind I guess.

Hilarious.

If he would have said the opposite you would have spewed right along with it.

Face it. You picked a side. Your opinions follow the people on the same side. I suspected it for a while but now I know for sure.
#cantthinkformyself
Oh? Triggered a bit much this morning?

You really are slow, huh? How did you barely come to the conclusion that I was a Trump supporter? Lmfao 🤣 seriously, what?

Equally hilarious is the fact that you said echo chamber, bruh, that's the defining factor of who you root for, notice, "root". You'll play BS an say, I don't play sides blah blah blah, but simultaneously jump into leftist echo chamber circle jerk, occasionally peering over your shoulder to say, "uh naw, just chillin here, yay obama....", Lol, get real.

#TRUMP202
#KAGA



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Lmfao, wow that's embarrassing 🙄



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join