Is the NYT op-ed Sedition and Treason

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This isn't about just jabbing off to the NYT, however. If that were all it was, I'd be inclined to agree.

But we have someone admitting to being an enemy of the Constitution of the United States, who confesses to a willful subversion campaign against this Republic and our cherished Constitution.

Lets be clear, this perpetrator is a threat to the national security of the United States. Given the Democrat's reaction to mere Russian meddling/propaganda, you'd expect them to be taking up arms over this. But what are they doing? Their usual battery of deflections, excuses, obfuscations and general avoidance of intelligent discussion/rebuttal. Opting instead to grasp straws. Apologists

This is a national security emergency, that is a far greater threat to the Constitution and Republic (you know, those things some of us are actually trying to protect...) than anything we've seen in recent history.

Again, this proves what Trump has been saying all along is true

It seems to me a lot of leftists (including some here) still have a hefty plate of crow to finish. Don't you all ever get tired of being wrong every time you open your mouth?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Again, I never said any laws were broken. This is what I mean by misrepresentation. Your accusations are fake.

Yes. You did. Treason is illegal. Playing with it or whatever you mean by that is no exception. You are either guilty of it or you aren't. And if you accuse someone of treason you are accusing them of breaking the law. AGAIN this is simple substitution logic. It isn't "misrepresenting your argument" to follow a logic chain to its conclusion.

And if you are going to suggest treason and not be serious about it then you are part of the problem of the ongoing propaganda to dilute the meaning and weight of the word. Something that is probably just as bad as erroneously accusing someone of treason without merit.

You are defending an unnamed cabal of bureaucrats, who remain unelected by the people, unaccountable to the people simply because you credulously believe every word he says. Again, embarrassing.

No. I'm defending the author of this article from your slanderous and untrue accusations of treason that are based on absolutely zero Constitutional basis.

Wouldn't it technically be libelous? Not to split hairs or anything....

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

I am having a blast proving you guys wrong today. Thanks for you concern.

www.workplacefairness.org...

3. How do I "blow the whistle?"

There are three common ways for federal employees to blow the whistle:
Report to a supervisor
Contact the Inspector General - IG
Contact the Office of Special Counsel

lol
you may now return to the spreading of your ignorance

Did you see the word "common" in there? There are other ways to blow the whistle. I'd bet those three options are supposed to be the safest though.

BTW, you must be 100% in support of Obama going after Edward Snowden for blowing the whistle on the NSA to the Guardian or Chelsea Manning for blowing the whistle on the military to Wikileaks, right?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How is the author of the article a whistleblower?

Because he's blowing the whistle on Trump's incompetence and inability to act Presidential and he's supposedly speaking from a position of authority within Trump's administration. It's really not that hard to understand.

He blew the whistle on his own illicit activity, not Trump’s. It must be difficult to understand, apparently.

originally posted by: BTPowers

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Again, I never said any laws were broken. This is what I mean by misrepresentation. Your accusations are fake.

Yes. You did. Treason is illegal. Playing with it or whatever you mean by that is no exception. You are either guilty of it or you aren't. And if you accuse someone of treason you are accusing them of breaking the law. AGAIN this is simple substitution logic. It isn't "misrepresenting your argument" to follow a logic chain to its conclusion.

And if you are going to suggest treason and not be serious about it then you are part of the problem of the ongoing propaganda to dilute the meaning and weight of the word. Something that is probably just as bad as erroneously accusing someone of treason without merit.

You are defending an unnamed cabal of bureaucrats, who remain unelected by the people, unaccountable to the people simply because you credulously believe every word he says. Again, embarrassing.

No. I'm defending the author of this article from your slanderous and untrue accusations of treason that are based on absolutely zero Constitutional basis.

Wouldn't it technically be libelous? Not to split hairs or anything....

There are no federal libel laws, so if so who cares?

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This isn't about just jabbing off to the NYT, however. If that were all it was, I'd be inclined to agree.

But we have someone admitting to being an enemy of the Constitution of the United States, who confesses to a willful subversion campaign against this Republic and our cherished Constitution.

I didn't see anywhere he admitted to such a thing.

Lets be clear, this perpetrator is a threat to the national security of the United States. Given the Democrat's reaction to mere Russian meddling/propaganda, you'd expect them to be taking up arms over this. But what are they doing? Their usual battery of deflections, excuses, obfuscations and general avoidance of intelligent discussion/rebuttal. Opting instead to grasp straws. Apologists

Let's be clear. You don't understand what is and isn't a threat to National Security.

This is a national security emergency, that is a far greater threat to the Constitution and Republic (you know, those things some of us are actually trying to protect...) than anything we've seen in recent history.

Oh PLEASE! Stop being hyperbolic. A disgruntled employee isn't a national security threat even IF what he is claiming is false.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How is the author of the article a whistleblower?

Because he's blowing the whistle on Trump's incompetence and inability to act Presidential and he's supposedly speaking from a position of authority within Trump's administration. It's really not that hard to understand.

He blew the whistle on his own illicit activity, not Trump’s. It must be difficult to understand, apparently.

Illicit? There you go with the illegal stuff again. Yet you can't prove that he admitted to anything illegal.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not at all. This isn't remotely the same.

They exposed illegal/immoral acts of government to the press.

This insider hasn't exposed anything. They've expressed their opinion about Trump, without providing a single example or piece of supporting evidence. Compare that to Ed Snowden or Chelsea Manning, both of which provided numerous classified documents to support their claims (as is required by those making allegations). These two individuals also exposed their identities. Snowden did so intentionally, proudly, like the patriot he is.

Instead, this person has remained in government and taken it upon themselves to subvert the lawful functions of government and subvert unlawfully the Constitution and its proscribed system of Republican government.

This person does not compare with Snowden or Manning. Or Reality Winner, for that matter.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

They confessed in a NYT article to subverting the Constitution of the United States. That is in fact a crime. I've quoted no less than 5 statutes from the USC. Please see my above post

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How is the author of the article a whistleblower?

Because he's blowing the whistle on Trump's incompetence and inability to act Presidential and he's supposedly speaking from a position of authority within Trump's administration. It's really not that hard to understand.

none of which are a crime

I never said it was a crime.

not that you would understand such
continue pulling things from your backside and pretending they are relevant

Are you able to talk to someone without insulting them? Like do you realize that not everyone sees eye-to-eye on things and it doesn't make them stupid for not seeing things as you see them?

originally posted by: JBurns
Instead, this person has remained in government and taken it upon themselves to subvert the lawful functions of government and subvert unlawfully the Constitution and its proscribed system of Republican government.

NO! He hasn't. Get that through your head already! He is undermining the President yes, but "the President" isn't a lawful function of the government. It is a position within the government. One beholden to certain standards, precedents and Constitutional law.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How is the author of the article a whistleblower?

Because he's blowing the whistle on Trump's incompetence and inability to act Presidential and he's supposedly speaking from a position of authority within Trump's administration. It's really not that hard to understand.

He blew the whistle on his own illicit activity, not Trump’s. It must be difficult to understand, apparently.

Illicit? There you go with the illegal stuff again. Yet you can't prove that he admitted to anything illegal.

I said illicit. For whatever reason you switched the word to illegal. I wonder why?

a reply to: JBurns

I've now decided that you have no clue what the term "subvert the Constitution of the United States" is. This is why I think of you as a budding authoritarian. You justify the craziest unconstitutional solutions to situations that you've hyperbolically and willfully misunderstood to defend Trump.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How is the author of the article a whistleblower?

Because he's blowing the whistle on Trump's incompetence and inability to act Presidential and he's supposedly speaking from a position of authority within Trump's administration. It's really not that hard to understand.

He blew the whistle on his own illicit activity, not Trump’s. It must be difficult to understand, apparently.

Illicit? There you go with the illegal stuff again. Yet you can't prove that he admitted to anything illegal.

I said illicit. For whatever reason you switched the word to illegal. I wonder why?

il·lic·it
i(l)ˈlisit/
adjective
adjective: illicit

forbidden by law, rules, or custom.

source
Maybe because illicit and illegal are synonyms.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How is the author of the article a whistleblower?

Because he's blowing the whistle on Trump's incompetence and inability to act Presidential and he's supposedly speaking from a position of authority within Trump's administration. It's really not that hard to understand.

He blew the whistle on his own illicit activity, not Trump’s. It must be difficult to understand, apparently.

Illicit? There you go with the illegal stuff again. Yet you can't prove that he admitted to anything illegal.

I said illicit. For whatever reason you switched the word to illegal. I wonder why?

il·lic·it
i(l)ˈlisit/
adjective
adjective: illicit

forbidden by law, rules, or custom.

source
Maybe because illicit and illegal are synonyms.

Thanks for sharing the definition. Hopefully now you know what it means.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Thanks for agreeing with me for once that illicit and illegal are synonyms.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

A disgruntled employee isn't a national security threat even IF what he is claiming is false.

You're intentionally trying to obfuscate and make this about what they wrote about Trump. I don't care what their opinion on Trump is, it is is not a factor in a single one of my posts.

They should share their opinion all day every day for all I care.

My issue is the fact that 1) DEEPSTATE shadow government claims are backed up ample amounts of evidence (not just this person, Strozok/Page texts, FISA lies, Comey's Mueller appointment scheme, etc);

and 2) they admit to subverting our lawful Constitutional authority. The acts themselves or their impact are actually irrelevant. It is the subversion of our Constitution, and someone other than the POTUS exercising the authority vested in him by the Constitution. It is all about the violation and subversion of the Constitution, nothing about the author's opinion or "mean words" about Trump. I don't care about their words, their emotional kneejerks, etc. I only care about the facts, and the reality that our Constitution is what makes our government legitimate. It is what makes the Republic real.

When the President is sworn in, their oath consists of swearing to defend/preserve/protect the Constitution. That is the entirety of their oath. It isn't about handing out treasury funds for welfare, or funding the latest leftist cause celebre, it is 100% about upholding the Constitution and defending it from all enemies foreign and domestic.

That is the problem. And FYI, to "blow the whistle" one has to provide actual information/examples/etc. Expressing your dislike of someone isn't "whistle blowing"...hell, it isn't even original. Just flip on Rachel Maddow or YouTube or internet comments to see the anti-Trump sentiments. It isn't unique, and certainly not even news worthy. The part that is important/news worthy is the part where someone within government has confessed to working against the Constitution by subverting POTUS Constitutional authority.

It is absolutely untenable.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

I am having a blast proving you guys wrong today. Thanks for you concern.

www.workplacefairness.org...

3. How do I "blow the whistle?"

There are three common ways for federal employees to blow the whistle:
Report to a supervisor
Contact the Inspector General - IG
Contact the Office of Special Counsel

lol
you may now return to the spreading of your ignorance

Did you see the word "common" in there? There are other ways to blow the whistle. I'd bet those three options are supposed to be the safest though.

BTW, you must be 100% in support of Obama going after Edward Snowden for blowing the whistle on the NSA to the Guardian or Chelsea Manning for blowing the whistle on the military to Wikileaks, right?

So provide the other protected whistleblowing venues genius.
I'd bet you wont as there are no other, especially the nyt.
But hey why not deflect to hussain?
Deflection is typically your go to when shown the error of your dnc talking points.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Actually I'm really tired of talking to someone who insults me at every chance he gets. I think i'll just report your posts and move on with my life.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How is the author of the article a whistleblower?

Because he's blowing the whistle on Trump's incompetence and inability to act Presidential and he's supposedly speaking from a position of authority within Trump's administration. It's really not that hard to understand.

none of which are a crime

I never said it was a crime.

not that you would understand such
continue pulling things from your backside and pretending they are relevant

Are you able to talk to someone without insulting them? Like do you realize that not everyone sees eye-to-eye on things and it doesn't make them stupid for not seeing things as you see them?

If it is not a crime then why are you brandishing the whistleblower protection act dufus?
Speaking the truth is no insult.