Is the NYT op-ed Sedition and Treason

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

It sure triggered you. I think it is obvious why this guy wanted to stay anonymous. Because he feared retaliation by people such as yourself. Also, no it isn't playing with treason. Why? See the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s quite the accusation, especially since I was just suggesting that anyone who skirts the institutions of democracy the constitution is a coward. No, he wrote it anonymously to inspire his audience, people such as yourself.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

It sure triggered you. I think it is obvious why this guy wanted to stay anonymous. Because he feared retaliation by people such as yourself. Also, no it isn't playing with treason. Why? See the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s quite the accusation, especially since I was just suggesting that anyone who skirts the institutions of democracy the constitution is a coward. No, he wrote it anonymously to inspire his audience, people such as yourself.

How is speaking grievances against the government and its leaders "skirting the institutions of democracy" exactly? That's literally a principle this country was founded on.

Why are yall being so hard on the next potus?

Mike is a good guy.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

It sure triggered you. I think it is obvious why this guy wanted to stay anonymous. Because he feared retaliation by people such as yourself. Also, no it isn't playing with treason. Why? See the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s quite the accusation, especially since I was just suggesting that anyone who skirts the institutions of democracy the constitution is a coward. No, he wrote it anonymously to inspire his audience, people such as yourself.

How is speaking grievances against the government and its leaders subverting democracy exactly? That's literally a principle this country was founded on.

Obviously we’re talking about what he admitted to, not his writing. Good god. Is it going to be straw man parade?

Who is the constitutionally mandated authority of the country?

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

It sure triggered you. I think it is obvious why this guy wanted to stay anonymous. Because he feared retaliation by people such as yourself. Also, no it isn't playing with treason. Why? See the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s quite the accusation, especially since I was just suggesting that anyone who skirts the institutions of democracy the constitution is a coward. No, he wrote it anonymously to inspire his audience, people such as yourself.

How is speaking grievances against the government and its leaders subverting democracy exactly? That's literally a principle this country was founded on.

Obviously we’re talking about what he admitted to, not his writing. Good god. Is it going to be straw man parade?

Who is the constitutionally mandated authority of the country?

The constitution itself.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

It sure triggered you. I think it is obvious why this guy wanted to stay anonymous. Because he feared retaliation by people such as yourself. Also, no it isn't playing with treason. Why? See the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s quite the accusation, especially since I was just suggesting that anyone who skirts the institutions of democracy the constitution is a coward. No, he wrote it anonymously to inspire his audience, people such as yourself.

How is speaking grievances against the government and its leaders subverting democracy exactly? That's literally a principle this country was founded on.

Obviously we’re talking about what he admitted to, not his writing. Good god. Is it going to be straw man parade?

Which is what? What did he admit to in the op-ed that is illegal in your mind? Please quote me the passages from the article itself too.

Who is the constitutionally mandated authority of the country?

The US citizens.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Who is the constitutionally mandated authority of the country?

A wide range of government entities/individuals who fill those ranks.

We have no king, we have no absolute ruler, we do have a systems of checks and balances.

Should this person reveal their identity (the only moral way their identity should be revealed), they can get fired.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Good grief. Here's the scenario.

Trump demands the NYT's turn over the writer.
The NYT's refuses.
The case goes to court.
The NYT's wins.

There are a #storm of tweets.
Trump is impeached.

Oh, but Trump is impeached with or without this letter. Trump will be impeached period, probably in 2019.

By the way, since we haven't heard a peep out of what happened in Helsinki, if you want to seriously look for treasonous acts, you might start there. Ain't no tellin' what trump told putin, or what shady deals he made since putin is trump's lodestar.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Also, do you think that this person didn't consult a lawyer(s) before going to the NYT?

Do you think the NYT didn't use a team of lawyers to go over this before printing?

My guess is they knew what they were doing.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

It sure triggered you. I think it is obvious why this guy wanted to stay anonymous. Because he feared retaliation by people such as yourself. Also, no it isn't playing with treason. Why? See the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s quite the accusation, especially since I was just suggesting that anyone who skirts the institutions of democracy the constitution is a coward. No, he wrote it anonymously to inspire his audience, people such as yourself.

How is speaking grievances against the government and its leaders subverting democracy exactly? That's literally a principle this country was founded on.

Obviously we’re talking about what he admitted to, not his writing. Good god. Is it going to be straw man parade?

Which is what? What did he admit to in the op-ed that is illegal in your mind? Please quote me the passages from the article itself too.

Who is the constitutionally mandated authority of the country?

The US citizens.

I’m not sure of the legalities, but we hold elections for a reason. The writer admitted to “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of [the presidents] agenda and his worst inclinations.” He is admitting to sabotaging the duly elected president.

Treason? The "It's treason" crowd couldn't get McCain so doubt this one will be gotten either.

The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

He is admitting to sabotaging the duly elected president.

Could be he is saving that duly elected official from doing something regrettable or unconstitutional.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

It sure triggered you. I think it is obvious why this guy wanted to stay anonymous. Because he feared retaliation by people such as yourself. Also, no it isn't playing with treason. Why? See the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s quite the accusation, especially since I was just suggesting that anyone who skirts the institutions of democracy the constitution is a coward. No, he wrote it anonymously to inspire his audience, people such as yourself.

How is speaking grievances against the government and its leaders subverting democracy exactly? That's literally a principle this country was founded on.

Obviously we’re talking about what he admitted to, not his writing. Good god. Is it going to be straw man parade?

Which is what? What did he admit to in the op-ed that is illegal in your mind? Please quote me the passages from the article itself too.

Who is the constitutionally mandated authority of the country?

The US citizens.

I’m not sure of the legalities, but we hold elections for a reason.

Don't cop out. You mentioned illegalities. Surely you are aware of these illegalities if you are speaking about them. This has nothing to do with elections too. Elections don't prevent us people from speaking out against our politicians if we disapprove of their actions. This includes people who work for those politicians. The only exception is the military, but that is only because they are governed by the UCMJ and not the Bill of Rights.

The writer admitted to “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of [the presidents] agenda and his worst inclinations.” He is admitting to sabotaging the duly elected president.

Lol. No he isn't. You are reaching here. You've created a false equivalency here that the ONLY reason someone would try to change the President's actions is because they want to sabotage him.

The simple fact is that the 1st Amendment is standing in your way and if you disagree you are an authoritarian subverting democracy.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Who is the constitutionally mandated authority of the country?

A wide range of government entities/individuals who fill those ranks.

We have no king, we have no absolute ruler, we do have a systems of checks and balances.

Should this person reveal their identity (the only moral way their identity should be revealed), they can get fired.

This writer refuses to use the system of checks and balances, and admitted to sabotaging the agenda of his boss, whom was elected to enact that agenda. How are you guys so dismissive of this?

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

This writer refuses to use the system of checks and balances, and admitted to sabotaging the agenda of his boss, whom was elected to enact that agenda. How are you guys so dismissive of this?

How do you not care about whistleblowers? I guess you approved of Obama breaking a record on prosecuting whistleblowers during his Presidency.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

It sure triggered you. I think it is obvious why this guy wanted to stay anonymous. Because he feared retaliation by people such as yourself. Also, no it isn't playing with treason. Why? See the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s quite the accusation, especially since I was just suggesting that anyone who skirts the institutions of democracy the constitution is a coward. No, he wrote it anonymously to inspire his audience, people such as yourself.

How is speaking grievances against the government and its leaders subverting democracy exactly? That's literally a principle this country was founded on.

Obviously we’re talking about what he admitted to, not his writing. Good god. Is it going to be straw man parade?

Which is what? What did he admit to in the op-ed that is illegal in your mind? Please quote me the passages from the article itself too.

Who is the constitutionally mandated authority of the country?

The US citizens.

I’m not sure of the legalities, but we hold elections for a reason.

Don't cop out. You mentioned illegalities. Surely you are aware of these illegalities if you are speaking about them. This has nothing to do with elections too. Elections don't prevent us people from speaking out against our politicians if we disapprove of their actions. This includes people who work for those politicians. The only exception is the military, but that is only because they are governed by the UCMJ and not the Bill of Rights.

The writer admitted to “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of [the presidents] agenda and his worst inclinations.” He is admitting to sabotaging the duly elected president.

Lol. No he isn't. You are reaching here. The simple fact is that the 1st Amendment is standing in your way and if you disagree you are an authoritarian subverting democracy.

That’s false I did not mention “illegalities”. I said he was “playing with treeason”. I left it ambiguous on purpose.

I just quoted the part and you dismiss it. He literally admitted to “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda”.

You can’t argue without erecting straw men and knocking them down. It’s no longer worth the time.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

This writer refuses to use the system of checks and balances, and admitted to sabotaging the agenda of his boss, whom was elected to enact that agenda. How are you guys so dismissive of this?

How do you not care about whistleblowers? I guess you approved of Obama breaking a record on prosecuting whistleblowers during his Presidency.

This isn’t a whistleblower. This guy admitted to sabatoging the duly elected leader, and you defend him.

a reply to: roadgravel

Treason?

If folks around here keep wanting to use words like "treason" and "sedition" I guess other folks will just keep having to call them out by posting the LEGAL definitions.

Sure makes them look silly, and shuts them right down for being ignorant.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
That’s false I did not mention “illegalities”. I said he was “playing with treeason”. I left it ambiguous on purpose.

Uh... There is no "playing with treason"... Treason is a VERY serious charge to accuse someone of and the US has prosecuted very few cases of treason throughout its existence. To level that accusation means you are throwing some weight around. I know that Trump and the right wing media has severely diluted the meaning of treason, but this is the truth. You clearly don't understand the weight of the words you are using.

I just quoted the part and you dismiss it. He literally admitted to “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda”.

That isn't illegal. And if it is, quote me the legal statute that says so.

You can’t argue without erecting straw men and knocking them down. It’s no longer worth the time.

I know right? Your entire argument is based on a severe misunderstanding of how the Constitution works.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

This writer refuses to use the system of checks and balances, and admitted to sabotaging the agenda of his boss, whom was elected to enact that agenda. How are you guys so dismissive of this?

How do you not care about whistleblowers? I guess you approved of Obama breaking a record on prosecuting whistleblowers during his Presidency.

This isn’t a whistleblower. This guy admitted to sabatoging the duly elected leader, and you defend him.

But he IS a whistleblower. Just because he blows the whistle on things you don't like doesn't make him not one.