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: 9
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
If any person is actually interested in facts/reality vs. partisan spinmanship, please check out the following from Chapter 115 of Title 18 of the USC

18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

www.law.cornell.edu...

§ 2381 - Treason
§ 2382 - Misprision of treason
§ 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
§ 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
§ 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government
§ 2386 - Registration of certain organizations
§ 2387 - Activities affecting armed forces generally
§ 2388 - Activities affecting armed forces during war
§ 2389 - Recruiting for service against United States
§ 2390 - Enlistment to serve against United States




posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


This op-ed has nothing to do with Mueller and does not validate or invalidate anything that Mueller has


...which is "nothing" since Mueller already spelled out in his "Russia indictments" that "NO U.S. CITIZEN IS ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED THIS OR ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES"

Quote: "THIS OR ANY LAW OF THE US"

There's a reason Mueller agreed to limit his questions and to accept written answers. As they've been saying all along, Trump is not a criminal target of the investigation. Trump was also cleared by the FBI a few months before Comey's dishonest and shameful scheme to appoint a special counsel

Ahem

www.nytimes.com...

"Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia"

But hey, what Mueller ""has"" must've somehow eluded the FBI during their first TWO INVESTIGATIONS right? Oh that's right, must be one of these witnesses you claimed had "flipped" right? Flynn? Gates? Manafort? Cohen? Kushner? Trump JR? Didn't they all "flip" according to you? I seem to remember you stating that very "matter of factly." Too bad you were wrong, because it never happened. Not a single one of them "flipped" on the President, because there was nothing for them to "flip" with.

Too bad monetary bets/gambling isn't permitted here. Trump didn't break any laws, but I sure would be winning a lot of money. All I'd have to do is bet the exact opposite of the "predictions" you and others make. That's the problem with prognosticators, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
edit on 9/6/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns



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.


Show me where saying mean things about Cheetolini is in there. And honestly, Orange Jesus should only be pissed at himself because he only picks the best people, the very best, and the person who wrote this op-ed was appointed by him.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Exactly one half of you statement is true, the other half demonstrably false. At least you can use both to feign how in the middle you are.


So what half is true?


The one you didn't imagine in the heat of the moment.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I've made very clear this has nothing to do with the "mean things" said about Trump. The attempts by some to direct focus to that aspect of this is dishonest, because it ignores the vastly more important text which indicates the individual is working from within to subvert the President's Constitutional authority (ie: subverting the Constitution)

The speech against Trump is A-OK. I couldn't care less if he/she spent all day every day writing mean things about Trump. I don't even care if someone wants to break the law and leak classified information in order to expose a crime/immoral practice (ignoring the fact that "classification" is an Exec Order not a Constitutional provision). What I can't abide (nor should any freedom loving American) is a willful subversion of the Constitution to enact an illegitimate agenda (ie: an agenda not determined by those who's Constitutional role is to lead the nation and uphold its laws)

To be sure, my entire argument is focused on the act of subverting the administration (ie: the Constitution, by subverting the President's authority/duties/legal initiatives). It has absolutely nothing to do with the "mean things" written about POTUS. Those would not have been mentioned if not for others bringing them up...wholly irrelevant to my position on this. Not even a factor



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Leaving no stone unturned to find the leaker!
mobile.twitter.com...



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Show me where saying mean things about Cheetolini is in there. And honestly, Orange Jesus should only be pissed at himself because he only picks the best people, the very best, and the person who wrote this op-ed was appointed by him.


The guy can't catch a break from antiTrumpers. First he is guilty for hiring only sycophantic loyalists, now its his fault that they weren't loyal enough.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
The one you didn't imagine in the heat of the moment.


My imagination is not that vivid.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
I've made very clear this has nothing to do with the "mean things" said about Trump. The attempts by some to direct focus to that aspect of this is dishonest, because it ignores the vastly more important text which indicates the individual is working from within to subvert the President's Constitutional authority (ie: subverting the Constitution)


So what exactly has this anonymous person done to circumvent the Constitution?



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
The one you didn't imagine in the heat of the moment.


My imagination is not that vivid.


Yet you imagined people would perform sexual favors on him while shooting the people who opposed them. Not a vivid imagination, but typical one.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
The guy can't catch a break from antiTrumpers. First he is guilty for hiring only sycophantic loyalists, now its his fault that they weren't loyal enough.


My heart breaks for him, truly. It doesn't change the fact that he hired this person and he only hires the best people, the very best, and this person is doing their job to what they feel is the best of their ability. How can you fault that?



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Yet you imagined people would perform sexual favors on him while shooting the people who opposed them. Not a vivid imagination, but typical one.


That isn't a stretch, I think El Presidente would be able to set up a take-a-ticket machine to get in line for that opportunity.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They indicated they are among an unelected cabal that is substituting their own agenda for the agenda of the American people and our duly elected POTUS. They are interfering/obstructing/subverting the President's Constitutional authority and duty.

Since the Constitution does not provide for a "shadow government" to act as a check on the President's authority/duties (that is what entire co-equal branches of government are for), their acts can be cleanly described as "unconstitutional."

Such is clearly less than Constitutional. There are no degrees of tyranny or legitimacy. Either something is legitimate or it is not. Either something is Constitutional or it is not. Either something is illegal or it is not. Either something is a tyranny or it is not. Very black and white
edit on 9/6/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Has nothing to do with "shooting people opposed to the President." Nobody suggested that. No one supported that. That is an invented claim

Now, those attempting to subvert or otherwise infringe on the Constitution on the other hand...... well, treason has very specific potential legal consequences. And I am behind those provisions 100% without the slightest reservation. But the key point is that due process must be observed, as well as all protections for those accused of a crime (even when they admit to it in a very public way). But if they're charged and subsequently convicted of treason, I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. Of course there is always the potential outcome of prison time + large fine + never being eligible for office/position of trust ever again, and I think that'd serve well in making an example out of traitors just as the Rosenberg's execution for espionage/treason made an example of another group of traitors.

Like I said earlier, the ball is now in the President's court. However he decides to respond to this threat/attack is OK by me. Whatever he ends up deciding

edit on 9/6/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
They indicated they are among an unelected cabal that is substituting their own agenda for the agenda of the American people and our duly elected POTUS. They are interfering/obstructing/subverting the President's Constitutional authority and duty.


Who appointed these people? If Ragent Orange appointed them then they are working under the auspices of Presidential authority. If he doesn't like the job his appointees are doing he should fire them. Like he did with all those other people because those poeple obviously weren't the best people, the very best. He needs to now go out an hirer the most betterest people, the very bestest.






edit on 6-9-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: 👁️ 💓 🧀 🍕



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
The guy can't catch a break from antiTrumpers. First he is guilty for hiring only sycophantic loyalists, now its his fault that they weren't loyal enough.


My heart breaks for him, truly. It doesn't change the fact that he hired this person and he only hires the best people, the very best, and this person is doing their job to what they feel is the best of their ability. How can you fault that?


That's quite a simple explanation of political appointments and staff hiring, but sure.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Yet you imagined people would perform sexual favors on him while shooting the people who opposed them. Not a vivid imagination, but typical one.


That isn't a stretch, I think El Presidente would be able to set up a take-a-ticket machine to get in line for that opportunity.


It isn't a stretch; t's a lie. The interesting question is why you'd say it.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
[
That's quite a simple explanation of political appointments and staff hiring, but sure.


Simple and true. Unless you happen to be privy to information the rest of aren't that they were appointed by someone other then Orange Jesus.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
It isn't a stretch; t's a lie. The interesting question is why you'd say it.


Because there are nutbars in this thread saying it's time to start shooting. Me saying they would take care of the President's pent up frustration prior to that is just some fun to get all blind followers to smile.




edit on 6-9-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




There are four basic categories of political appointments:

Presidential appointments with Senate confirmation (PAS): These positions require a congressional hearing and a confirmation vote of the full Senate under the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.[4] As at 2016, PAS positions included 1,212 senior positions, including the Cabinet secretaries and their subordinates at the Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, and Assistant Secretary levels; the heads of most independent agencies; and ambassadors.[1] It also includes United States Attorneys and United States Marshals.[2] The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 reclassified about 170 PAS positions to PA, to no longer needing Senate confirmation.[5][6]

Presidential appointments without Senate confirmation (PA): These appointments do not require a Senate hearing or vote. As at 2016, there were 353 PA positions, most of which were in the Executive Office of the President.[1]

Non-career Senior Executive Service (NA): The Senior Executive Service (SES) forms the level just below the presidential appointees. While the SES largely consists of career officials, up to 10%, or (as of 2016) 680 positions, can be political appointees.[1]

Schedule C appointments (SC): Schedule C appointees serve in confidential or policy roles immediately subordinate to other appointees. As of 2016, there are 1,403 Schedule C appointees.[1]

Unlike the presidential appointments, the non-career SES and Schedule C appointments tend to be made within each agency and then approved by the Office of Presidential Personnel.[5]


en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 6-9-2018 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join