Trump threw hateful racist accusations against Obama, and they didn’t care.
Trump threw hateful racist accusations against Mexicans, and they didn’t care.
Trump told Russia to hack Hillary’s computers, and they didn’t care.
Trump said he wanted to grab women by the pussy, and they didn’t care.
Trump attacked American veterans and prisoners of war, and they didn’t care.
Trump lied about saving American jobs, and they didn’t care.
Trump lied about fixing our health care, and they didn’t care.
Trump violated the Constitution by using his office to enrich himself, and they didn’t care.
Trump attacked the integrity of journalists and the judiciary, and they didn’t care.
Trump committed obstruction of justice and fired the director of the FBI, and they didn’t care.
Trump attacks American allies and praises vicious dictators, and they didn’t care.
Trump separates refugee children from their families as a form of punishment and deterrence, and they didn’t care.
Trump bullies, insults, and spreads malicious lies about anyone who disagrees with him, and they didn’t care.
Trump repeatedly denied the findings of US law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and they didn’t care.
Multiple members of Trump’s administration have been indicted or convicted of crimes related to their misconduct regarding Russia, and they didn’t care.
Trump Jr admitted he lied about his secret Russian contacts, and hey didn’t care.
Trump lies daily, repeatedly, to no purpose, and contradicts himself from one day to the next, and they don’t care.
The Republicans and conservatives - as a whole - have been characterized by their absolute unwillingness to contradict or condemn anything Trump says or does.
So the question you are asking is the same question the rest of us have been asking since before the election. What does Trump have to do in order for people to reject him? And every day it looks like the answer is “nothing.” There is no lie he could tell, no obscenity he could utter, no promise he could break, no trust he could betray that would actually cause people to lose faith in him.
When speaking of a president of the United States, the legal term of art is what matters. If he’s a traitor by the legal definition, I hope and expect the electric chair to be brought out. If he merely fits the basic definition, which has been obvious for a long time, he will most certainly weasel out of any consequence or responsibility.
To the second: Because I am the one developing and expressing this particular opinion. No authority has been identified for the sake of this discussion.
To the first: Given the responses in the press by people who would reasonably be expected to know what policy was in place, I’d say that what he did was at best an impulsive blunder. Can acts of idiocy be declared traitorous?
I don’t know enough about that situation to render an opinion. But my decision would rest upon his analysis and cooperation with other high officials (whether this was an agreed-upon change in policy based upon the best interests of the USA), and whether there was an attempt to produce personal gain.
Was Aldrich Ames a traitor? Was Richard Hansen? I don’t understand the formal charges or their legal basis but I know that Hansen pleaded down in order to avoid the death penalty, yet we were not at war with Russia at the time.
Mr. Trump openly declared his intent to be the first person to profit from the Presidency. His “blunders” taken in that context, and in light of the information we’ve received about his financial dealings with Russian oligarchs, defy the “idiot” defense. They also defy the “accident” and “secret US interests” defenses.
Mr. Trump has made his sole approach to all decisions very clear: it is based solely upon his own personal benefit. That makes him a traitor in every case, regardless of the outcome. (thereby defying the “no harm, no foul” defense.) He is not using a Presidential yard stick, regardless of the weight of the decision. He is still using the yard stick of a money-grubbing private citizen.
What does this mean? International Trade Agreement?
Trump is not a ‘traitor’ in the conventional sense - but IMHO, he is a traitor to the ideas this country was founded upon and to the progress this country has made over the past 200 + years.
He’s also a traitor to the office, in that he is disgracing it in a way that we will not recover from easily.
It would seem to me that leaders of countries that sign a treaty promising to spend a certain amount on defense and then not fulfilling their commitments are as responsible for weakening NATO as the president who calls them out on it. Are they guilty of treason as well?, how far does this conspiracy go?
Likewise if the leaders of the other countries would drop tariffs on US goods the trade war would be over, are they traitors too?
Isn’t accusing the president of being a traitor polarizing the electorate? Maybe the OP is a traitor.
I know alot of people on the left have been critical of Fox News and try to undermine other forms of conservative media. They must be traitors too.
Since when do liberals think being a traitor a bad thing? When Chelsea Manning released classified government secrets as a part of the military to the Russian intelligence site Wikileaks, she was pardoned by Obama. Edward Snowden also released classified secrets to Russian intelligence and Bernie Sanders said he did a great service.
I tend to agree, but I hope we’re both wrong. Many Republicans now call the Iraq war a mistake and hold the W administration responsible for its consequences. (Of course, this hindsight came far too late and too timidly to stop the disaster before it started.) My sincerest hope is that Mueller will turn up something that makes Republicans say, “Holy shit, this guy sold us out. He needs to go, now.”
Of course, as I type this, I realize why it’s so unlikely – because it would mean telling voters “Hey, you were fooled, and we helped fool you.”
Those examples are moronic. Equating free speech by private citizens with a POTUS making back-door deals with a foreign power?
Snowden and Manning faced severe consequences for their actions. (FTR, I recoiled at Obama’s pardon and believe Sanders is way offbase.) So can we count you as backing severe consequences for Trump if collusion with Russia is proven?
I didn’t realize we were in an impeachment proceeding or other legal proceeding.
I was responding to the question in the thread title, restated in the OP as: “is he literally acting on Russia’s behalf to undermine the United States?” Accordingly, my take is that the more colloquial definition applies. Because that question can have an affirmative answer whether or not his conduct qualifies as treason.
However depressing I find it, I can’t argue with your conclusion.
I think what’s going on with Trump is exactly why the Founders defined the grounds for impeachment as loosely as they did. It’s quite possible for a President to be wantonly destructive towards our country without violating any statutes.
I believe the way it should work is that such a President should be removable on the basis of the damage he’s already done to the country, and the damage he will almost surely do if left in power.
But that’s not the way it will work. Even if twenty GOP Senators were to resign and be replaced by Democrats, they’d still need the fig leaf of a crime to impeach, country be damned. Fortunately for that hypothetical world, Mueller surely has more than sufficient evidence that Trump has obstructed justice, and at some point it will come into the House’s possession.
But under the optimistic scenario for next year (Dems win a 51-49 Senate majority), 16 GOP Senators would need to be convinced to vote for conviction. Would they do so even if presented with overwhelming evidence of obstruction of justice? “Outlook not so good,” says my magic 8-ball.
Yes, it’s true that there is currently no hard evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, only “fairly compelling circumstantial evidence”. However, given that the investigation is ongoing, and that more and more compelling circumstantial evidence emerges on almost a daily basis, it seems like the reasonable assumption is that hard evidence exists and will be forthcoming at some time in the fairly near future.
When billowing clouds of smoke are blotting out the sun, the smart money is on there being a fire somewhere. But it’s true, at the moment we can’t rule out the possibility that it’s just a Grateful Dead concert or something.
If it was demonstrated that Trump was literally working with Putin to serve Russia’s interests at the expense of America’s interests, consistently and with clearly deliberate intent, would ‘he’s too stupid to be a traitor’ still be an applicable defense?
We don’t know what Mueller has in his files. The evidence for obstruction of justice is pretty clear. And remember that Nixon did not personally break into the Watergate offices, or even give specific directions to do so.
