I’m still curious how a woman who has only achieved the office of Town Meeting Representative in Lexington, MA was able to dine with Vladimir Putin and Michael Flynn in Moscow. It is well known that Republicans have used the Green Party as a ratfuck to try to peel off left leaning votes. It certainly helped Trump win, as purity ponies cast protest votes for Jill Stein in 2016.
Stein has been despicable since the election, still insisting that Hillary Clinton would have been far worse than Trump.
Now, she won’t turn over some documents related to her campaign and Russia. Gee, I wonder why?
As soon as I started reading the thread title I thought “Lemme guess: dalej42”.
I am impressed how you think she should hand over all the party’s communications with anyone of Russian descent and all internal communications regarding their Russian policy. Don’t think many hard core Dems would be willing to go all Joe McCarthy on the lefties.
Since Jill Stein may be guilty of treason, yes, she should. The Russians aren’t stupid, they saw how Ralph Nader and the “Greens” were able to ratfuck the 2000 election.
I agree Jill may have provided some nonzero amount of “spoiler effect”, like Nader in 2000. It’s also hard for me to believe that Hillary would have been worse than Trump, although when it comes to foreign policy, her State Department did create a lot of problems…with regard to foreign intervention, she might have been as much or more hawkish, but in all other regards she would have been a better president x1000 than the guy currently causing endless chaos and division in this country.
But a “traitor,” really? The Democrats lost the election because they ran a shitty campaign and Trump fought harder. That’s it. The popular vote doesn’t matter; Trump campaigned his ass off for the electoral vote, and he got it.
Also, if the Democrats were smart strategists, they would have urged socially-liberal Republicans to vote Libertarian as a protest vote. Gary Johnson self-sabotaged his campaign by being a goofy and unappealing candidate. If it had been Rand Paul running third-party, though, he actually could have siphoned off enough votes from the Republicans to make a difference.
Treason against the United States is defined: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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.
Russia is an enemy of the United States. Jill Stein taking contributions from Russia can be seen as giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the USA.
Beside the ludicrous argument that any dealings with Russia can be consider “treason”, how do you get the idea that if person A accepts money from person B that person A is giving aid to person B? Isn’t it the other way around? But maybe I’m just uninformed and you have some particular case in mind where an American was convicted of treason because he accepted a gift?
OTOH, if you are ever in need of aid and comfort, feel free to give me a gift.
John Mace dealt with treason, I’ll deal with ‘enemy’.
I visited Russia (St. Petersburg) last year and have friends (Americans) who have worked there extensively. We also have a fair amount of trade with them (see: International Trade).
Russia has completing goals and interests in the world that do not line up with our goals and interests and we are not on good terms overall, but I think calling them the ‘enemy’ is a bit overboard. depending on your definition of enemy.
The difference is, you’re not a nobody who was having dinner with the head of state of Russia and sitting next to a known traitor such as Michael Flynn. Jill Stein, as a nobody, was in a position to ratfuck the 2016 election.
I’ll disagree with you on this one. They have interfered with our electoral process, and instigated widespread hacking into our power grid and other infrastructure, including, but not limited to, our nuclear power plants. The fact that we are not in a “hot” war does not change the reality that they are a hostile state that has engaged in multiple acts of war against us.
I understand that the FBI is a large agency, and is capable of investigating more than one person at a time. But, to the extent that they do need to prioritize their finite resources, I think they would be well served to devote more attention to the president for whom Flynn was a campaign adviser and National Security Advisor, than to the losing candidate who sat next to him at dinner.
Jill Stein is probably not a particularly nefarious person. I think her problem is that somewhere in the middle of being an activist, she discovered a career path in political election shitting. She’s a perpetual campaigner. She knows she has no chance of winning a primary or an election, but she can raise money, travel around the world, expense things, and pretend to give a fuck about people’s causes – but again, knowing she’s not going to actually do shit about them except to play election spoiler.
Can you cite any case law that supports this view? Which specific act are you thinking of that Jill Stein did that would amount to treason? Remember that even the Rosenbergs were not charged with treason, but with espionage.