Are Trump and his Congressional Sycophants Traitors? - Page 6

whell · #51 07-17-2018, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow

Your sycophantic nonsense and rationalization are unconvincing and "mostly false." Moreover, Israel did not indict ~25 Americans with charges associated with this activity, unlike the ~25 Russians who have been indicted by us. America doesn't extradite its citizens who don't face indictments, particularly for "mostly false" charges, dimwit. BTW, both Bibi and his wife are now facing criminal charges in Israel and Obama isn't.

Here's what your boy, Trey Gowdy, said Sunday on what he would like to say to Trump before the Helsinki summit. "Your first requests of Vladimir Putin needs to be: tell us which airport we can pick up the 25 Russians that tried to interfere with the fundamentals of our democracy. If you really claim you had nothing to do with it that you should be as shocked as we were that your military was being used to impact our election. Tell us where you're going to extradite those folks because an American grand jury indicted them for undermining our democracy."

This is a particularly lazy, dishonest and disingenuous example of "whataboutism" on your part and represents nothing other than yet another example of you shamelessly lying in support of Traitor Trump. The bottom line is that Trump's failure to ask for the extradition is not really the biggest issue here. His throwing the US intelligence and law enforcement community under the bus and calling the investigation that has resulted in the indictment of ~25 Russians a "witch hunt," after having trashed NATO, the EU, Germany and the UK.

BTW, my OP was two days before yesterday's treasonous acts, an indicator that his behavior already seemed treasonous before he sealed the deal yesterday.

Well, I'm glad we can agree that Obama did use taxpayer funds to donate to an Israeli PAC during an election year. So, rave on Finn. We can continue this discussion when Obama - or others - are held similarly accountable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/s...do-it-too.html

“If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,” said Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A., where he was the chief of Russian operations. The United States “absolutely” has carried out such election influence operations historically, he said, “and I hope we keep doing it.”

“We’ve been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947,” said Mr. Johnson, now at the University of Georgia. “We’ve used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners — you name it. We’ve planted false information in foreign newspapers. We’ve used what the British call ‘King George’s cavalry’: suitcases of cash.”

“I’m not in any way justifying what the Russians did in 2016,” Mr. Levin said. “It was completely wrong of Vladimir Putin to intervene in this way. That said, the methods they used in this election were the digital version of methods used both by the United States and Russia for decades: breaking into party headquarters, recruiting secretaries, placing informants in a party, giving information or disinformation to newspapers.”

His findings underscore how routine election meddling by the United States — sometimes covert and sometimes quite open — has been.

EDIT: Oh, and this too:

At least once the hand of the United States reached boldly into a Russian election. American fears that Boris Yeltsin would be defeated for re-election as president in 1996 by an old-fashioned Communist led to an overt and covert effort to help him, urged on by President Bill Clinton. It included an American push for a $10 billion International Monetary Fund loan to Russia four months before the voting and a team of American political consultants (though some Russians scoffed when they took credit for the Yeltsin win).

Maybe Clinton is the "person of interest" that Putin referred to when he invited Mueller to Moscow to interview the indicted Russians, but then asked for reciprocity to interview folks that he's interested in. Wouldn't that be a hoot?!

finnbow · #52 07-17-2018, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell

I'm paywalled for that particular article. That said, I suspect the WSJ, who has never been a fan of the Trump presidency, probably didn't go so far as to use the word "treason" in the article you posted. As far as I know, that word is reserved to the truly rabid Never Trumpers, or leftist whack jobs. I'm sure you know the type.

Mr. Trump marched through Europe with more swagger than strategy. His diplomacy is personal, rooted in instinct and impulse, and he treats other leaders above all on how much they praise Donald J. Trump. He says what pops into his head to shock but then disavows it if there’s a backlash. He criticizes institutions and policies to grab headlines but then claims victory no matter the outcome... Monday’s joint press conference was a personal and national embarrassment. On stage with the dictator whose election meddling has done so much harm to his Presidency, Mr. Trump couldn’t even bring himself to say he believed his own intelligence advisers like Dan Coats over the Russian strongman.

And yes, the WSJ is pro-Trump. Just read Kimberly Strassel's pieces on their Op-Ed page. She's at least as big a Trump cultist as you are. Whether or not they used the word "treason," they certainly made the argument that his behavior gave "aid and comfort to the enemy" (the constitutional definition of treason). It's sad that it's gotten to the point that a valid argument can be made that the president is treasonous and the only defense of him boils down to a semantic argument.

Rajoo · #53 07-17-2018, 10:38 AM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiQk_O4WkAMPOkO.jpg

Rajoo · #54 07-17-2018, 10:47 AM

See How Newspaper Front Pages Around the World Reacted to Trump's Embrace of Putin in Helsinki

Quote:

The Guardian
✔
@guardian

The Guardian front page, Tuesday 17 July 2018: ‘Nothing short of treasonous’. Trump accused over Putin talks

Quote:

Bath Newseum @richardwyatt

Two traitors on one front page.

Quote:

Le Monde ⭐️⭐️
✔
@lemondefr

#ALaUne Trump, meilleur allié de Poutine

translation: Trump best ally of Putin

Quote:

Michael Knigge
✔
@kniggem

German press headlines on Trump and Putin summit in Helsinki:

Handelsblatt: Summit of the autocrats

Die Welt: Trump makes it easy for Putin

Frankfurter Allgemeine: Trump lauds “very productive summit”

Quote:

Publico in Portugal said Putin gave Trump what he wanted, and Trump gave him much more in return:

Putin admits he wanted a Trump win, says Portugal’s business newspaper Negocios:

Finland’s business newspaper Kauppalehti scored the meeting Trump 0, Putin 1:

http://fortune.com/2018/07/17/trump-...er-front-page/

whell · #55 07-17-2018, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow

And yes, the WSJ is pro-Trump.

Uh no, not so much.

https://money.cnn.com/2017/03/22/med...-donald-trump/

The Wall Street Journal editorial board's blistering rebuke of Donald Trump on Tuesday was only the latest chapter in an antagonistic relationship between the president and a usual standard-bearer of conservative media.
Throughout Trump's campaign and into his young presidency, the Journal's editorial writers have repeatedly cast a wary eye. They have questioned his economic acumen and temperament, and even suggested at one point that the Republican Party might have to write Trump off in order to salvage its prospects in other races.

Almost exactly one year ago, the editorial board found itself ensnared in a public feud with Trump after questioning his chances of winning the general election. Trump called the writers "dummies"; the editorial board responded by saying, "The truth hurts."

You're like the weather forecasters here in MI. You're wrong far more than you're right, but it just doesn't matter to you and you keep forging ahead with your inaccuracies.

Chicks · #56 07-17-2018, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell

You're like the weather forecasters here in MI. You're wrong far more than you're right, but it just doesn't matter to you and you keep forging ahead with your inaccuracies.

Perfect description of you.