Good luck reasoning with these folk. Bush was literally Hitler not too long ago. Why’d you expect a more civil tone when Mrs. Clinton was denied her turn?
Never blackmail anyone, since you don’t seem to understand that blackmail doesn’t work if the thing you are holding over someone’s head is in the news.
However the big bucks Trump owes Russian banks is a far better piece of leverage than the piss tape.
I’m sure you’d like to remember history that way. But the reality is that most people weren’t saying Bush was Hitler. They were saying Bush was a bad President who was seeking to start a unnecessary war in Iraq over false evidence. Which is true.
Many of the same people are now saying that Trump is a bad President who has probably accepted illegal aid from Russia. This has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, no matter how much you want to change the subject.
Stop pretending you’re the voice of civility and reason here.
No, that’s one of two definitions. The more longstanding definition of ‘traitor’ is ‘someone who betrays.’
This definition predates (by centuries, AFAICT) the definition of ‘treason’ as a legal term of art.
Russia wants us to hand over a number of persons to them for questioning, in return for a dubious offer of assistance with the Mueller investigation.
These people include Michael McFaul (former U.S. ambassador to Russia), Bill Browder (former employer of Sergei Magnitsky who pushed for passage of the Magnitsky Act), several Federal law enforcement officers involved with looking into the death of Sergei Magnitsky, and the congressional staffer tasked with drafting the text of the Magnitsky Act.
The fact that Trump hasn’t immediately and unequivocally ruled out making such a deal is a pretty good measure of how far beyond the pale he’s gone.
Good summary here.
You don’t have to be nuclear-weapons scientist or a master intelligence agent to be a traitor. Any American imbecile who calls up a friend in Russia and asks “What can I do to help Putin?” is a traitor. Trump was probably a traitor, literally, even before he ran for President.
I’ll let future historians decide whether he became a traitor out of simple greed, or because Putin’s FSB caught him in a [del]honey[/del] urine trap, or just because he enjoys doing despicable deeds. But traitor he is.
I can’t think of a major American leader, whether D or R, who has so blatantly betrayed his country. Even war criminals may have thought they were acting in U.S.'s interest. We have several Trump apologists aboard SDMB. It will be interesting to see if any can admit what’s as obvious as the nose on one’s face.
Yes, absolutely.
He should be impeached and removed from office. That won’t happen, but that’s what should happen.
And if federal and/or state prosecutors find that he has committed crimes, he should face justice just like any other person.
Pretty bland post, I know. But that’s what our institutions should be – boring, but relentless and consistently effective.
It’s unconscionable that he hasn’t immediately rejected the proposal, and still apparently hasn’t. But it speaks to the fact that Trump himself does not have high regard for the rule of law; he has higher regard for the rule of man. And this man is our president.
I don’t want the Democrats controlling the country idiotically, no. I don’t want Democratic voters ignoring reality and embracing IOKIADDI. You don’t get to good policy by leaving your brain at the door.
And before anyone asks, no. It isn’t about purity. (Compromise is fine, often good.) It’s about trying to make stable, steady progress rather than haring off after whatever might play well in the news that day. We should be steadfast, not flippant. We should seek and promote the truth and our ideals, not accept whatever “truth” or “ideals” are convenient in the moment. If you win adherents through bullshit, you can just as easily lose them to bullshit, too.
I’m saying someone should have a basic level of awareness or intent that their actions are aimed at hurting the United States to the benefit of a hostile country to be considered a traitor.
There’s a ton of right-wingers who claim that Obama is a traitor for a variety of reasons, such as negotiating the Iran deal. I’m sure Obama asked himself in the context of those negotiations, “What can I do to help Iran?” in order to craft a deal that Iran would be interested in. The main difference is that the deal also helped the U.S., so under no circumstances could Obama be considered a traitor.
To explain my opinion another way, just because I don’t think Trump is a traitor, does not mean I’m absolving him of his massive incompetence and unsuitability for the office. A monkey with a machine gun is extremely, extremely dangerous, even if one cannot fairly conclude that the monkey is a serial killer on the basis that he lacks the requisite intent.
“…even Russian state television commentators were shocked by Trump’s “very bizarre” words, with 60 Minutes co-host Olga Skabeeva observing that, "he really smells like an agent of the Kremlin”.”
Russia’s state TV:
The host: "Let’s analyze Trump’s performance at the presser. At which point in time could you say he was licking Putin’s boots?”
Amicable relations with Russia do fall under the penumbra of “valid US interest.” It is uncontroversial to state that, in a hierarchical ordering of all valid US interests, they rank higher than both “non-confrontational” and “strained” relations with Russia.
It is also uncontroversial to state that under such a heirarchical ordering, all three rank far below the prevention of interference in our elections.
I think Arcite would count Donny Two-scoops’ actions as traitorous only if he took the football and handed it over to Putin.
Maybe not even then.
Bricker, have you ever, upon retiring at night, having said your prayers and kissed your wife, contemplated the question emphasized above? If not, may I request that you do so tonight?
And after you have done so, I would be grateful if you would share your conclusion.
I asked this elsewhere, but have not yet gotten an answer: would such a thing even be legal? My understanding is that Russia does no have an extradition treaty with the US, and I find it hard to believe that Trump could order US marshals to simply arrest US citizens on no particular pretext and cart them off to Russia, or even to force them to be interrogated by Russians on US soil.
Several people in this thread have said something along the lines of “should happen, but won’t,” but I’m really interested in why not. I mean, there has to be a tipping point, right? There has to be a line where even the staunchest Republicans will realize loyalty to this president is no longer sustainable. Right?
Right? Please?
She’s not the only one. Michael Steele tweeted:
The question: Is it possible to assume that the policy of the United States was to improve relations with Russia and the detriment to the US and Israel was an acceptable price to pay?
Answer: yes. It is possible to assume it.
Do I assume it? Answer: I don’t have an opinion, because reaching one requires I be privvy to information that is not in the public sphere of knowledge.
Based only on what I know: no, it was not. But that’s meaningless; it’s me offering an opinion based on incomplete information.
No, he’s not a traitor.
He says a lot of stupid shit. This stupid shit talk has probably demoralized our allies and probably emboldens our enemies.
He has this idea that if you strongarm friends to squeeze out what you want, and flatter enemies to get what you want. It’s completely wrong-headed, and dumb, but not treason. We’ll have to see how that works out, so far Putin hasn’t taken over any more countries on his watch.
His stupid shit talk fortunately does not totally match up with the actual policy coming out of the white house. I doubt he really does much, if anything, regarding policy, he his underlings take care of that. The main thing is he has a very 1950’s outlook on trade and I think these tariffs are gonna hurt us. Congress needs to wrest back power in terms of tariffs for sure.
Because you want something to happen and think it should isn’t any sort of metric for it happening. Thus far, there has been no solid, conclusive evidence that Trump did anything illegal. There is some fairly compelling circumstantial evidence, but nothing solid enough to take to court…even if we weren’t talking about a sitting president. The bar for him to actually be found guilty of treason is very high, so I don’t see that happening. The bar for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ is, well, whatever Congress thinks it is, and with the Republicans in charge (or even if the Dems had a slight edge after the next election cycle) it’s going to take rock solid evidence that Trump knowingly colluded with Russia to rig the election for him to even be impeached.
So, you really need to turn this around. The president will be ‘sustainable’ until and unless such rock solid evidence is found and presented. The GOP leadership isn’t going to go along with even an impeachment, let alone a treason trial until and unless such evidence is presented. No amount of dislike or folks on message boards connecting dots and making speculative comments about pee tapes or Russian bankers threats is going to rise to the level of real action. I recall from the Bush years how convinced the majority of this board was that, once a Democrat was in the top seat and the Dems controlled Congress that Bush was going to jail. The first two things happened, but Bush is still prison orange free at this point. Nor have the European nations made a real effort to extradite him or send in sekrit skuurl agents to take him off for war crimes trials.
In Trump’s case, IF such evidence is found I think he will go down. But until someone is presenting hard evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians wrt the election then nothing is going to happen.