Is the NYT op-ed Sedition and Treason

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Allegedly.

Funny how people will call the book a hack job but cherry pick pieces that fit their narrative.

Have I done that? Or are you pretending I'm someone else?

Is it the cabinet's job to surreptitiously steal papers from the president's desk so he will not sign them?

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Arnie123

It is a typical leftist response Arnie, they don't have real rebuttals or intelligence counter-points...just obfuscation, deflection, distraction and when that doesn't work...screaming at the sky.

However, the left should be equally appalled at this seditious/treasonous DEEPSTATE shadow government. They have just as much of an interest in seeing its perpetrators brought to justice as the rest of us.

Oh trust that I am fully aware of that.

They do have an equaled and rival interest in that regard, BUT, emotions, feels and having to get that last word in, plus an apology to everybody, sprinkles on top, hugs and kisses 😍😘🤩🤗......

.....

🤮😔😞😖😤😠😡🤬👿

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I don't write the laws. If you don't like the penalty, perhaps you should change the law. Only in this case, the crime is defined not by congress but by the Constitution itself.

Treason is the most heinous offense one can commit, as evidenced by the need for a Constitutional definition/penalty.

Yeah. It's so serious that the government has only charged fewer than 30 cases for it. So you need to make a REALLY compelling case that this is treason. Yet all you've done is advocate for violating the Whistleblower Protection Act.

Where are the two witnesses that can attest to treason that the Constitution requires? By the way, got any evidence to show that this person is aiding and abetting an enemy? Can you even reliably define that enemy without using the term "Deep State"? I'm guessing no and that you aren't following the Constitutions rules regarding treason yourself.

I am only suggesting the law be followed. No different than advocating for the judicious execution of a murderer or a conspirator in a terrorism plot. The key word is: judicious. IE: under penalty of law, with due process properly observed along with any additional Constitutional requirements (ie: confession in open court, 2 people testifying to the same overt act of treason, etc)

No you are suggesting that we political suppress people trying to blow the whistle on an incompetent administration.

Problem for the OP-ED author is that there are witnesses (NYT, allegedly) and the OP-ED in their own words describes an effort to subvert the lawful government of the United States and give aid or comfort to an enemy of this country by at least one individual who owes allegiance to the same.

Um... No. Subverting the president isn't the same as subverting the government. Read my sig. Even Teddy Roosevelt agrees.

That is a textbook definition. Much as ANTIFA's "domestic terrorist" designation is a textbook definition.

No it isn't. You don't understand the historical treason charges at all if you think this qualifies.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Likely this means they didn't want to anger Trump's base.

I'm sure it does mean that. Rightfully so.

But the 25th is a lawful remedy for removing the President. It is actually more difficult to implement than impeachment/conviction, and would require:

1) The Vice President
2) The entire cabinet
3) The President's approval; OR
4) 2/3's of the House and 2/3's of the Senate to overrule the President's presumed rejection of the 25th

To impeach/convict, only the House + 2/3 Senate majority is required to remove a sitting President.

Again, when those are conducted in accordance with the law/Constitution there is no problem.

Just as Trump may be legally removed by waiting for his term limit to expire (in 2024) or by defeating him in the 2020 election.

A President may also die of natural causes while in office.

There are no other legal ways to remove a sitting President. Anything short of that would not be a Constitutional crisis. It would be an outright Constitutional subversion and an attack on this Republic. And while I agree it is a "crisis" by definition, there would be absolutely nothing "Constitutional" about it...

And I can't help some here don't like the law or the possible penalties for violating it. You should take that up with the framers...or better yet, try to understand why treason was such a serious offense and how much of a threat it posed to the Republic.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: CriticalStinker



Is it the cabinet's job to surreptitiously steal papers from the president's desk so he will not sign them?

No. Frankly if it has gotten to the point where they need to protect the country by doing that, then they should enact the 25th and remove him from office.

The Op-ed actually discusses the 25th. He says that they discussed it but decided against it to prevent a Constitutional crisis. Likely this means they didn't want to anger Trump's base.

Which is cowardice. It's also unconsitutional. David Frum, of The Atlantic, did a very good piece on this.

Yeah. If I were the op-ed author and were sincere about the beliefs I was expressing in it, I'd have pursued the 25th Amendment option already too. The author is an idiot if he thinks an op-ed in the NYTs (a favorite target of Trump and his supporters) will sway any of his supporters to believe him.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Allegedly.

Funny how people will call the book a hack job but cherry pick pieces that fit their narrative.

Have I done that? Or are you pretending I'm someone else?

Is it the cabinet's job to surreptitiously steal papers from the president's desk so he will not sign them?

I don't know, have you said the book is a hack?

Either way, the president hires his cabinet to help him make the right decisions. I'm sure cabinet members have done some unorthodox things from time to time to protect the presidents seat.

Whether or not anyone took papers off of his desk, I don't know, and I wouldn't use one book as my only source. Authors write books to make money, this guy is making a killing. His vested interest is to stir up a storm so he sells an assload of books.

originally posted by: JBurns
And I can't help some here don't like the law or the possible penalties for violating it. You should take that up with the framers...or better yet, try to understand why treason was such a serious offense and how much of a threat it posed to the Republic.

Speaking of not liking the law, why do you keep ignoring my point about the Whistleblower Protection Act?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: CriticalStinker



Is it the cabinet's job to surreptitiously steal papers from the president's desk so he will not sign them?

No. Frankly if it has gotten to the point where they need to protect the country by doing that, then they should enact the 25th and remove him from office.

The Op-ed actually discusses the 25th. He says that they discussed it but decided against it to prevent a Constitutional crisis. Likely this means they didn't want to anger Trump's base.

Which is cowardice. It's also unconsitutional. David Frum, of The Atlantic, did a very good piece on this.

Yeah. If I were the op-ed author and were sincere about the beliefs I was expressing in it, I'd have pursued the 25th Amendment option already too. The author is an idiot if he thinks an op-ed in the NYTs (a favorite target of Trump and his supporters) will sway any of his supporters to believe him.

oh really
please allow us to understand your reasoning for such
how is trump unable to perform the duties of the potus?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JBurns
And I can't help some here don't like the law or the possible penalties for violating it. You should take that up with the framers...or better yet, try to understand why treason was such a serious offense and how much of a threat it posed to the Republic.

Speaking of not liking the law, why do you keep ignoring my point about the Whistleblower Protection Act?

why do you ignore the reporting requirements of such?
or will you source the ability to use the nyt as such?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whistleblower Protection Act.

Totally false. This has nothing to do with being a "whistle blower"

If they had merely written the article using classified information or exposing a crime, that would be a "whistle blower"

Working from within to subvert the government IS NOT THE SAME as exposing corrupt practices/illegal activities to the proper authorities or media outlets as appropriate. Speaking up is not the same thing as working from within against the Constitution. The Constitution does not provide for a "shadow government" to keep the President in check. It does provide several very clear and explicit pathways to removing an incapacitated, criminal or corrupt President/public official. Those methods are outlined in the Constitution.

Our military and elected officials swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And you don't get to cherry pick which parts of the Constitution you will follow and which parts you will ignore. This is very black and white, very binary. Either our government is Constitutional or it is not. The latter is intolerable, and should be outrageous to any freedom loving American.

Those making excuses, obfuscating and grasping for straws are despicable.

a reply to: shooterbrody

why do you ignore the reporting requirements of such?

Why don't you elucidate better on what I'm supposedly ignoring and how it applies to this thread?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because you have no point. Working from within to subvert the Constitutional authority of the President and Constitutional legitimacy of the Government is NOT blowing the whistle.

Blowing the whistle is exposing corrupt or illegal practices to the media or the proper authorities.

I didn't ignore it, I addressed it above. And I'm addressing it again now. It doesn't apply, this person isn't a whistle blower. A whistle blower exposes criminal/immoral acts government is trying to hide through secrecy, not someone who willfully subverts the Constitution of the United States.

are you unaware of the reporting requirements of the act you posted about?
or are you simply ignoring them?
please source the part about the nyt?

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whistleblower Protection Act.

Totally false. This has nothing to do with being a "whistle blower"

Yes it does. Just because you don't want to look at him as a whistleblower doesn't mean you he isn't. You are just wrong.

If they had merely written the article using classified information or exposing a crime, that would be a "whistle blower"

I knew you were going to say this. That's why I bolded those specific words in the definition that CLEARLY say that you can blow the whistle on a broken law OR a misuse of authority. So no. You are wrong.

ETA: Here I'll requote the bolded words so you can read them again:

report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety

Do you know what the word "or" means?

en.wikipedia.org...

The Office of Special Counsel investigates federal whistleblower complaints

go get your shinebox

originally posted by: shooterbrody

en.wikipedia.org...

The Office of Special Counsel investigates federal whistleblower complaints

go get your shinebox

And? What's your point?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I don't know, have you said the book is a hack?

Either way, the president hires his cabinet to help him make the right decisions. I'm sure cabinet members have done some unorthodox things from time to time to protect the presidents seat.

Whether or not anyone took papers off of his desk, I don't know, and I wouldn't use one book as my only source. Authors write books to make money, this guy is making a killing. His vested interest is to stir up a storm so he sells an assload of books.

I didn't say the book is a hack, no.

Yes, the president hires his cabinet to advise him, not to surreptitiously steal papers from his desk, not to "thwart" or "frustrate" the leader, not to leak or spread propaganda to the NYT.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
as per the typical day you have exceeded your depth

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t
as per the typical day you have exceeded your depth

Yeah. Sorry. My mind reading powers to interpret your intentions when you only post a link and one line under it with no supporting context aren't working today.

Yes, the president hires his cabinet to advise him, not to surreptitiously steal papers from his desk, not to "thwart" or "frustrate" the leader, not to leak or spread propaganda to the NYT.

So he is hiring the wrong people.