Question about NYT Op-Ed

a reply to: CriticalStinker


You don't think usurping an elected president is giving comfort to our enemies?

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: norhoc

How is it treason if they are doing it for America and announcing their plans? They are not forcefully removing trump, and talks of removal rest on legal action.

Is talking to journalist about non-classified behaviors in the White House treason?

I don't think so and I believe journalism is on the line. Journalist should have the right to protect their sources. We can't just break this integrity because we think the behavior of said source is distasteful.

talking, writing, acting out, none of that is wrong or illegal. But if they are doing what they claim to be, then it's against the Constitution and needs to be looked at like that, unless we aren't following that anymore.

a reply to: blueman12

Taking things off his desk isn't talk.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: howtonhawky

When has a resistance ever done this to what is on the President's desk?

Well you conflate two events in your question. I very much stated i thought that people named gary and rob should be outed.

On the other hand somewhere around 50% of Americans want the potus to fail and they actively seek to stop things they are against during any givin presidency.

The thing i take from the oped is that this is not limited to one single author but a group of people who see things they do not agree with and they seek to stop the potus from getting things done.

Seems like normal operating procedure to me. Call me when there are crimes...

a reply to: howtonhawky



Your phone should be ringing, because these are crimes. A coup of a duly elected POTUS is a crime, Again, even Bob Woodward calls this a administrative coup.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: CriticalStinker


So now according to you definitions of words that don't suit your agenda or beliefs don't matter? Got it.

My "agenda" is that laws don't get abused for emotions.

My "agenda" is that people don't start using the Webster dictionary to charge someone with the highest crime in the land for saying some unsavory things about their boss.

Where did the op-ed say anything about stealing documents off of the presidents desk? That came from a book that the right has called a hack piece but state that alleged part as fact. Sounds like you're the one twisting words and conflating different things to fit your agenda.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: howtonhawky

When has a resistance ever done this to what is on the President's desk?

Well you conflate two events in your question. I very much stated i thought that people named gary and rob should be outed.

On the other hand somewhere around 50% of Americans want the potus to fail and they actively seek to stop things they are against during any givin presidency.

The thing i take from the oped is that this is not limited to one single author but a group of people who see things they do not agree with and they seek to stop the potus from getting things done.

Seems like normal operating procedure to me. Call me when there are crimes...

www.constitutionfacts.com...

if you can show me where in that document it states that if you don't like the president, you are free to do what you think is best, for the good of the country.

If you can't find it, then it may not be in there, and there is a possibility that there is a crime being committed. (if this is true)

a reply to: CriticalStinker


You must be lying about your agenda, because laws are getting broken by establishment and liberals based solely on their emotion. And I am using the legal definition of treason and what this person or persons are doing is in violation of the legal definition of treason

a reply to: network dude


EXACTLY, if you don't like him win elections and vote him out, that is out it works in our republic.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: CriticalStinker


You must be lying about your agenda, because laws are getting broken by establishment and liberals based solely on their emotion. And I am using the legal definition of treason and what this person or persons are doing is in violation of the legal definition of treason

You didn't use the legal definition, you used the dictionary.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: network dude


EXACTLY, if you don't like him win elections and vote him out, that is out it works in our republic.

And if he doesn't like who he appointed, he can fire them.

a reply to: CriticalStinker


www.law.cornell.edu...

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.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)


That better for you? Like you can't google it yourself? If usurping the authority of a duly elected POTUS is not giving comfort to our enemy then I don't know what fits the definition in your opinion.

a reply to: CriticalStinker


How can he fire the person , when they are a coward hiding behind anonymity? And if the person does not like working for this POTUS they can resign. It works both ways, but , I guess with liberals it does not work both ways. It is one set of rules for you and another for the rest of us.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: network dude


EXACTLY, if you don't like him win elections and vote him out, that is out it works in our republic.

I may be wrong here, but it seems to me, this is an in your face disregard for the constitution, and even if you are Hillary Clinton, you should be smart enough to notice this, and call it wrong.

There are systems in place to deal with things, if they are as bad as this letter claims. Things our system of government put in place for checks and balances to ensure that we as a nation can maintain our order. Going rouge isn't the right way to do this, and even if your intentions are the best, it's wrong and should be dealt with accordingly.

Some seemingly smart members here appear to be dumbasses in this regard and it scares me.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: howtonhawky



Your phone should be ringing, because these are crimes. A coup of a duly elected POTUS is a crime, Again, even Bob Woodward calls this a administrative coup.

Coup is such a dirty word.
The precedence the last potus's set seems to indicate this is not a coup.
The question i have is why does everyone ignore history in this country in relation to this? It could be the authoritative nature of the current admin is the source for the desire to ramp things up a bit. Simply stated the right is all fired up and not operating and viewing things in context as to how this country operates.

btw.. This is not even close to being a coup. The only coup is the one trump supporters are stuck in while trying to lay golden eggs.

a reply to: norhoc

That better for you? Like you can't google it yourself? If usurping the authority of a duly elected POTUS is not giving comfort to our enemy then I don't know hat fits the definition in your opinion.

Sounds more like he's having problems with his employees to me. He can fire them if he wishes.

My guess is if this was Elizabeth Warren the right wouldn't be calling for treason.

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I just hated when Obama used BS laws to go after leakers and whistle blowers.

The op-ed was most likely screened by a panel of lawyers before its release. Nothing illegal is spoken of in there. For all you know, they convince the president out of some of his stances, you know, the job of a cabinet.

a reply to: network dude

Most people do not like their boss...

Ever heard of liberty?

a reply to: howtonhawky



"Simply stated the right is all fired up and not operating and viewing things in context as to how this country operates. "



WOW! The right are the ones not operating within the confines of the constitution? The last I saw the right are the ones who won an election and are appointing nominees and doing things the way the constitution calls for and the left were the ones not accepting the outcomes and losing their collective Sh1t.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: network dude

Most people do not like their boss...

Ever heard of liberty?

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Please spell it out a bit.

a reply to: CriticalStinker



You are very dense. As I stated before how can he fire cowards that hide behind anonymity? If the cowards don't like him or working for him they can resign , but you on the left don't apply the same standards to yourselves that you want everyone else to abide by, and your Elizabeth warren comment is ridiculous. This was not E. Warren and we are calling for treason. This is not a whistle blower, A whistle blower would go to authorities and tell them of a crime , these people are claiming to steal documents to push their agenda, and are not even good at that, because clearly trump's agenda is being executed. I doubt their really are these people and truly think the NY Times made this up to create dissention.