The Road to Impeachment

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Wow, none of you can defend it - because you know the truth. It's indefensible.

In the law we have a saying Res Ipsa Loquitor - "The thing speaks for itself." If you see a broken window above you and a crushed TV on the sidewalk below it, you can deduce what happened. The thing speaks for itself.

The only one in the government who is not concerned, who doesn't condemn the Russians, is the Manchurian Candidate.

The thing speaks for itself.
 
Stevenson said:
"President Donald Trump railed against the investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election Saturday night into Sunday, sending off a stream of tweets attacking the FBI, CNN, the Democratic Party, his own national security adviser, former President Barack Obama and the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

He did not criticize Russia, or voice concern over Vladimir Putin's attempts to undermine U.S. elections." Politico.

It sort of cracks me up (sort of), watching you GOPers rationalize and explain away this very bizarre behavior, but treason is impeachable. His oath is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United Sates", not protect and defend himself.
Click to expand...

You throw the word "treason" around as if your suggested meaning is true.

Treason would be attempting to overthrow the duly elected government. Sounds more like a certain vocal minority than anyone else.
 
So we have the left reviving McCarthyism (secret documents prove the Russians run the government) and now the Manchurian Candidate thing?

Get a grip. Seriously.

I guess journalism has simply gone off the deep end. Can't be trusted at all anymore. It's going to take generations to restore confidence in it.

I cannot stomach CNN anymore. It's not watched on my TV anymore. MSNBC is barely any better. And Fox News is mindbogglingly stupid to watch 99% of the time.

That speaks to "journalism." I use quotes deliberately.
 
Last edited:
You may want too shoot the messenger, but my opinion is by far not a minority one.

And, for the record, I chose the word "treason" very purposefully. It is the only crime defined in the Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies,..."

He' s clearly in their pocket. The thing speaks for itself.
 
Speaking of coopting the term for political purposes... And the accusation is truly an intent to suppress political dissent. Didn't support Clinton last time? You're a traitor!


https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...-treason-actually-means-how-it-can-ncna848651

Americans have forgotten what 'treason' actually means — and how it can be abused

Treasonous acts may be criminal, but criminal acts are almost never treason. As Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies,“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” The Founders went out of their way to define treason narrowly because they knew how it had been repeatedly abused in the past.

For much of the pre-revolutionary period in England, the accusation was a means of suppressing political dissent and punishing political opponents for crimes as trivial as contemplating a king’s future death (what was known as “compassing”), or speaking ill of the king (“lèse majesté”). King Henry VIII even had two of his six wives executed for alleged adultery on the ground that such infidelity was, of itself, “treason.” The English abuse of treason was anathema to a nascent republic dedicated to the rule of law and the right of peaceful dissent.

Thus, to ensure that treason could not likewise be co-opted for political or personal purposes, the Constitution’s drafters not only defined it precisely (it’s the only offense specifically defined in that document), but also specified that “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.” (Article III also limits the punishment that can be inflicted, even with a conviction.)

...

Thus, to ensure that treason could not likewise be co-opted for political or personal purposes, the Constitution’s drafters not only defined it precisely (it’s the only offense specifically defined in that document), but also specified that “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.” (Article III also limits the punishment that can be inflicted, even with a conviction.)

To be sure, there’s no law against the colloquial misuse of a legal term — nor should there ever be. But the more we use the t-word to refer to conduct that doesn’t remotely resemble the constitutional definition, the more we are — willfully — turning a blind eye to the sordid history of treason that led to its unique treatment in the U.S. Constitution.
 
Stevenson said:
You may want too shoot the messenger, but my opinion is by far not a minority one.

And, for the record, I chose the word "treason" very purposefully. It is the only crime defined in the Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies,..."

He' s clearly in their pocket. The thing speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

That's such utter bullshit.

He's done nothing to help the Russians accomplish any of their goals.

Stories like this:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2017/12/27/trump_defies_putin_with_arms_to_ukraine_430050.html

Trump Defies Putin With Arms to Ukraine

Simply do not support your empty assertions.
 
OK, you tell me Denny, why is he the only one in government who won't condemn the Russians, let alone rally the country against their cyberwar against us?
 
And I don't need some article to tell me what treason is. I wrote a book about impeachment.
 
Stevenson said:
OK, you tell me Denny, why is he the only one in government who won't condemn the Russians, let alone rally the country against their cyberwar against us?
Click to expand...

He doesn't want war with Russia. They're a freaking nuclear power. The solution to their hacking is a diplomatic one, not reopening the cold war.

It would help if WE stop messing in other nations' elections.

Their cyber"war" ? Seriously?

LOL

Looks to me like the whole Trump/Russia/Collusion narrative is going up in the smoke that dreamed it up.

Is this treason thing the last gasp?
 
Stevenson said:
OK, you tell me Denny, why is he the only one in government who won't condemn the Russians, let alone rally the country against their cyberwar against us?
Click to expand...

Who the fuck cares? You're talking about sound bites. Who gives a shit? Actions speak louder than words and Denny already cited an action of Trump. Liberals are just ridiculous these days.
 
Denny Crane said:
Ann Coulter wrote books, too. Best sellers.
Click to expand...
Uhhhhh burn. Sounds like Colin cowherd's elitist viewpoint.


Any time some caller says a GM does something stupid, Cowherd says "he's getting paid millions, how much you make?"
 
Should I find it shocking that you know what "treason" is, yet you absolutely misuse the term in your accusations against the president?
 
Let's talk about yellow journalism, shall we?

A few days ago, the so-called "news media" was harping on a story of Trump making it easier for the mentally ill to buy guns. The media wouldn't tell us the ACLU opposed the regulation that Trump overturned, too.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment

No, Trump Did Not Make It Easier for Mentally Ill People to Buy Guns
Shooting revives deliberately misleading talking points about a bad regulation both the NRA and the ACLU opposed.

None of this is a remotely accurate description of what happened. A year ago, Congress and Trump eliminated a proposed rule that would have included in the federal government gun background database people who received disability payments from Social Security and received assistance to manage their benefits due to mental impairments.

This is a regulation that potentially deprived between 75,000 to 80,000 people of a right based not on what they had done but on the basis of being classified by the government in a certain way. The fact that these people may have these impairments did not inherently mean that they were dangerous to themselves or others and needed to be kept away from guns.

As I noted when the regulation was repealed last March, this rule violated not just the Second Amendment but the Fourth, because it deprived the affected people of a right without due process. The government does have the power to restrict and even deny gun ownership to people, but it has to show that these people have engaged in behavior that makes weapons dangerous in their hands.
 
Since I mentioned CNN... Seems like the people are wising up to their brand of "journalism."

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/16/cnn-ratings-drop-30-percent/

CNN’s Primetime Ratings Drop 30 Percent From Same Time Last Year

According toAdWeek, CNN “was -30 percent in total prime time viewers, and -23 percent in total day viewers from last year” for the week of February 5–11.

CNN did not even crack the top 10 for primetime viewers on cable, while its competitors’, MSNBC and Fox News, were number two and number one, respectively.

The network’s commentators and guests have often been critical of President Trump.
 
Trump is right about the Russians laughing at us. For good reason!

100 guys (allegedly) with $2M, and $100K of ad spending (most of it after the election) had more influence than the $100M+ in social media spend by the two candidates and their massive nationwide staffing?
 
Denny Crane said:
The solution to their hacking is a diplomatic one, not reopening the cold war.
Click to expand...

Really? And it is best to begin this process with an Assistant AG and a Special Counsel proceeding independently, all on their own? The Secretary of State and the President have no role?
Dang! This is all new to me. Where does the advise and consent of the Senate come in?
 
Since we love twitter.



Check out the date. This person claims to know all about the hacks, but isn't getting main stream press. Even though the history of tweets shows inside knowledge about what went on.
 
MarAzul said:
Really? And it is best to begin this process with an Assistant AG and a Special Counsel proceeding independently, all on there own? The Secretary of State and the President have no role?
Dang! This is all new to me. Where does the advise and consent of the Senate come in?
Click to expand...

President and Secy of State negotiate agreements and treaties, and enact policies within the powers granted to them by congress.

The Senate must approve actual treaties.
 
Denny Crane said:
President and Secy of State negotiate agreements and treaties, and enact policies within the powers granted to them by congress.

The Senate must approve actual treaties.
Click to expand...

Darn, I missed it again. I thought the Constitution, Section II granted that power, not the Congress. Well I guess technically, I guess it did come from Congress, way back when Section Two was adopted.
 
MarAzul said:
Darn, I missed it again. I thought the Constitution, Section II granted that power, not the Congress. Well I guess technically, I guess it did come from Congress, way back when Section Two was adopted.
Click to expand...

Imposing sanctions and/or tariffs would be a power granted by Congress.
 
Denny Crane said:
Imposing sanctions and/or tariffs would be a power granted by Congress.
Click to expand...

True. So is a declaration of war. None of which are a particularly great way to begin a diplomatic process. They usually wait for Secretary of State and the President to make a recommendation and and perhaps present a game plan. But then I have never seen a Special Counsel in the process at all. So I suppose we have a new process now. Funny I wonder if anyone knows how it works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

yankeesince59
Politics Jeff Flake speaks out..."country over party"
Replies
14
Views
645
Lanny
Lanny
yankeesince59
OT Has Fox News been hacked?
Replies
22
Views
2K
Lanny
Lanny
SlyPokerDog
Politics Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo
Replies
15
Views
686
Road Ratt
Road Ratt
Hoopguru
Politics Klobuchar (the darkhorse) supporter thread!
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
Lanny
Lanny
SlyPokerDog
Politics George F. Will: Trump is no longer the worst person in government
Replies
26
Views
2K
MarAzul
MarAzul

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top