Is the NYT op-ed Sedition and Treason

originally posted by: JBurns
On the bright-side, we now have very credible evidence of a subversive DEEPSTATE. Looks like Trump was right -again- all along. How many times does this make now? 5? 10? I lost count after the Strozok/Page exposure and the illegal Obama FISA scandal.

Real Americans would be (and are) appalled at the very notion of this. Even the suggestion this may be true is Earth shattering and threatens the very foundations of our system of legitimate Constitutional rule (all other forms are illegitimate and unworthy of the American people)

Have some beer and pringles old petunia. I can see the whites of your eyes all the way over here.

originally posted by: JBurns
Real Americans would be (and are) appalled at the very notion of this. Even the suggestion this may be true is Earth shattering and threatens the very foundations of our system of legitimate Constitutional rule (all other forms are illegitimate and unworthy of the American people)

I'm curious where the definition of "real American" is defined in the Constitution. Last I checked someone is an American as long as they hold citizenship here and there is no distinction made between being a "real American" and a "fake American(?)".

a reply to: CriticalStinker

They said they were frustrating aspects of it, and supported his agenda as a whole.

Frame it how you want, that is what was said. And yes, a cabinets job is to help the president make informed decisions. If the president is doing something stupid, it's their job to convince him to do something else.

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

a reply to: JBurns

Real Americans would be (and are) appalled at the very notion of this. Even the suggestion this may be true is Earth shattering and threatens the very foundations of our system of legitimate Constitutional rule (all other forms are illegitimate and unworthy of the American people)

I'm at work today, I'll be at work in a week, and then a month, so on and so forth.

Earth shattering is 9/11, the holiday we will all mourn soon.

A bit of "forum sliding" eh? No problem...

For those just joining, check out Page 6 & 7 for some thought provoking questions as well as the OP/page 1

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: CriticalStinker

They said they were frustrating aspects of it, and supported his agenda as a whole.

Frame it how you want, that is what was said. And yes, a cabinets job is to help the president make informed decisions. If the president is doing something stupid, it's their job to convince him to do something else.

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

That's from the new book out (which Trump supporters have called a book of lies), but it's quote worthy now?

The OP-ED never said anything about people taking papers off of his desk.

originally posted by: JBurns
A bit of "forum sliding" eh? No problem...

For those just joining, check out Page 6 & 7 for some thought provoking questions as well as the OP/page 1

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Given the fact that you seem to want the Op-Ed author brutally murdered, I think that we can talk about whatever we like.
*Shakes pringles can in your direction* Have some pringles and a beer.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: JBurns
A bit of "forum sliding" eh? No problem...

For those just joining, check out Page 6 & 7 for some thought provoking questions as well as the OP/page 1

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Given the fact that you seem to want the Op-Ed author brutally murdered, I think that we can talk about whatever we like.
*Shakes pringles can in your direction* Have some pringles and a beer.

F*k the beer man, I'd be willing to bet this dude just got done cleaning his guns while listening to talk radio... Don't wanna give him some liquid courage.

Roll this man a spliff.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

That's from the new book out (which Trump supporters have called a book of lies), but it's quote worthy now?

The OP-ED never said anything about people taking papers off of his desk.

That's false. The writer linked to a NYT article outlining the book while saying "That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office."

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I'm still wondering where the term "real American" is defined at. I'm hoping he can tell us since he brings that phrase up a lot.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Point well taken CriticalStinker

However, if the OP-ED is true, this represents an "attack" far more serious than anything Russia/China/NK has been doing via their espionage capabilities. All they can do is spy on us and inject a little bit of misinformation (they've been doing it for years), a shadow government represents a new type exotic and emergent threat that should be faced head-on and dealt with according to the letter of the law

No distinction is made between foreign enemies and domestic enemies. All I am saying is that I support following the law to the letter and upholding our Constitution in the face of any threat to it. And not just this threat, but any threat present or future. And surely that is something ALL Americans should be able to agree on. Heck, even non-Americans (who may not be intimately familiar with our system of law) will recognize the danger of shadow governments and subversive insiders

Any good corporate security posture, just as an example, will incorporate robust mechanisms for detecting and dealing with insider threats and other subversive bad actors

I think you made several good/key points in your reply, and I will try to keep that in mind as I put this situation in context But I am very disturbed by what we're seeing here and with the other situations involving insider threats within the government working to subvert or otherwise harm our perfectly legal and legitimate Presidency and agenda

a reply to: JBurns

You should familiarize yourself with this law:
Whistleblower Protection Act

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and 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. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.[1]

a reply to: JBurns

Any good corporate security posture, just as an example, will incorporate robust mechanisms for detecting and dealing with insider threats and other subversive bad actors

And just like a corporate job, they can get fired, as can the writer and those implied should the identities be revealed.

Props on taking a step back and cooling off, I always have admiration for someone who has such strong conviction but can listen to other opinions.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Point well taken CriticalStinker

However, if the OP-ED is true, this represents an "attack" far more serious than anything Russia/China/NK has been doing via their espionage capabilities. All they can do is spy on us and inject a little bit of misinformation (they've been doing it for years), a shadow government represents a new type exotic and emergent threat that should be faced head-on and dealt with according to the letter of the law

No distinction is made between foreign enemies and domestic enemies. All I am saying is that I support following the law to the letter and upholding our Constitution in the face of any threat to it. And not just this threat, but any threat present or future. And surely that is something ALL Americans should be able to agree on. Heck, even non-Americans (who may not be intimately familiar with our system of law) will recognize the danger of shadow governments and subversive insiders

Any good corporate security posture, just as an example, will incorporate robust mechanisms for detecting and dealing with insider threats and other subversive bad actors

I think you made several good/key points in your reply, and I will try to keep that in mind as I put this situation in context

But I am very disturbed by what we're seeing here and with the other situations involving insider threats within the government working to subvert or otherwise harm our perfectly legal and legitimate Presidency and agenda

Frankly I think that you are lost up a river in Egypt about the threat from Russia.
Can I ask what you think about what to do with a President who is patently unfit for the office, due to mental and emotional incapacity, not to mention being amoral?
*Rattles pringles again*

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?

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.

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?

Allegedly.

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

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.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

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.

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)

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.

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

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.