House oversight committee: Flynn might have broken the law

Good idea, more liberals will be spread out into those states we lost last time. This present travesty brought on by the Electoral College can be avoided

 

Everyone cares about Flynn.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/06/politics/michael-flynn-russia-trump-transition-warning/

• Members of Trump's transition team alerted Flynn in November that any conversations with Kislayk were most likely being monitored
• Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates is expected to testify before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee Monday about her warnings to the White House on Flynn

Do you really believe that Flynn took it upon himself to talk with Kislayk about sanctions? A good General does what his Commander in Chief tells him to do. Remember Powell at the UN?

 

Okay. PA put Trump over the top.

So we have two possible solutions to why Hillary lost PA and failed to carry out Obama's promised 3rd Term:

i) Obama called them racists, bigots, religous gun nuts and bitter clingers. Hillary called them Deplorable, Irredeemable and promised to put them out of work.

ii) The Ruskies did something.

After careful consideration, I think the case for i) exceeds the strength of the case for ii). And I have to wonder why the plainly obvious is hidden from you.

Thought experiment for you. If Obama and Hillary wanted to deliberately throw PA, and with it the election, what different abuses would they have heaped on the PA voter, than those that they unloaded on them?

 

A few months ago the sheeples were saying it was pure supposition that Flynn talked to Kislayk. A little later the sheeples were saying it was pure supposition that Flynn talked to Kislayk about sanctions.

Today's suppositions are tomorrows facts.

 

And this is the problem. They are trying to play politics with treason.

 

Like everything that trump tweets.

 

This is true, but, I still think its a good idea. I think government beaurocrats will benefit from mixing with the folks in Middle America, and certainly this will give them an opportunity to explain their dreams and goals to middle Americans.

Progressives Hate the Constitution. The only reason the Popular Vote is diverging from the Electoral College Vote is because CA needs to split into several states. But the current arrangement silences the voices of millions of Americans that progressives want silenced, so you whine and complain about something you could easily fix.

 

LOL, I think you basically nailed it.

 

No when we found out he had it was based on factual reporting and an actual discussion.

Again claims of collusion and coordination at this point are pure conjecture and the FBI has not stated any evidence of such. And quite often today's suppositions end up being eggs of faces.

 

I don't take Trump's tweets seriously. I would never go on for 25 pages defending one. In fact, Trump's tweets about the Mexican Judge were why I voted for Bernie, then I found out the judge was a member of La Raza, The Race. Now just how in the hell can a Federal Judge be a member of a group called The Race?

 

And meanwhile conservatives blithely disregard the most well-sourced articles put up here by HuffPo or even the New York Times because either they don't follow the Conservative Agenda and-or Trump doesn't like them, therefore they must all be lies concocted by the Lizard People.

OTOH if they say something bad about your opponents then blatant and admitted THIEVES suddenly become incapable of uttering anything but the Gospel Truth

The actual FACTS of the matter is that NONE of the WikiLeaks data has EVER been confirmed in any way by the DNC, the only reason the cons say this blatantly and illegally STOLEN information must be true is because the DNC doesn't deny it either, and that is standard practice for anyone who has this done to them since even a denial is seen as confirmation by thieves.

It used to be that we called anyone who colluded with the enemies of our country a traitor, no matter if they helped out our side or not, but that was before the present day Republican Party arose.

 

You're right, I refuse to accept that there was anything of substance in the hack of the DNC. Most of what was released from the hack had to do with internal Democratic party politics. I'm not a Democrat, so that stuff didn't have anything to do my voting decision. I don't see how internal Democratic party drama impacted Republican voters either.

I'm not looking down on anyone. Russian active measures work. That's why they use them. They have lots of experience using them in many countries. What I want people to see is that this time they were used against the Democrats. Next time they can be used against the Republicans. My point is we need to get to the bottom of what happened so it is never effective in the US again. The free election of our leadership is a cornerstone of our democracy and without confidence that our leaders actually represent us, we've lost our country.

I'm not acting like no one released bad things about Trump. They most certainly did. However, Wikileaks dumps were dominating the news cycle, and those releases were timed to counteract Trump's bad press. Of that there is no doubt… and that there was nothing to counteract negative press about Clinton, in return, unbalanced the media coverage. Most people realize that Trump said many things that, in any other election, would have been disqualifying to the electorate. However, each was countered by the "drip, drip, drip" of email releases that in and of themselves mattered not, but collectively changed the narrative of the news cycle away from Trump's foibles. Studies have been done on why people "hated" Clinton. In many cases, no reason was given. That speaks to the effectiveness of propaganda, misinformation, and coordinated efforts to bombard people with information to the point that they stop listening. Getting people to stop caring, and to discourage voting effectively meets the Russian goals just as well as encouraging people to vote for the candidate they support.

I just want the American people, alone, to decide on our leaders… without outside meddling. I don't care if the President is a Republican, a Democrat, or something else, as long as the decision is in the hands of the American people.

 

Uh huh. Like the suppositions I posted about Flynn. Uh huh.

 

I'm not re-litigating the election. Clinton lost. I get that. There are lots of reasons why. One of them is that Russia effectively launched active measures against her, employing 1000 trolls, using bots, coordinating misinformation and propaganda through social media, and hacking. I don't want that to happen again, no matter who the candidates are.

 

It is unreal that you actually have to make this post and point so many times.......WTH is wrong with so many people?

 

Please explain that last, the only ones I see being silenced are the 65 million who voted for Hillary, that being 3 million more than voted for Trump.

If CA was split into several states they'd have many more than just 55 electoral votes, and have beaten Trump handily

It isn't Progressives who want to overturn the 1st Amendment or who seem to think the Emoluments Clause no longer exists.

 

Such ignorance:

Treason: The Only Crime Defined in the US Constitution

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

The crime of treason was made constitutional to make it specific and not subject to change by Congress and used for politics. The Framers knew how governments had misused the charge against political foes.

Thinking About the King’s Death Could Cost Your Head

In English law, just thinking about the king’s death. The charge was used freely, and against political adversaries, of course, and the danger of an arrest for treason due to mere criticism of the government would chill most opposition. "Progressives" clearly yearn for a return to this level of complete power to destroy any that would dare to disagree with them and challenge their misconceptions in open debate. This does not indicate confidence in the ability of your ideas to prevail in a debate among those acting according to their own free-will.

The charge was particularly chilling due to the potential punishment. The penalty for treason was exceptionally heinous. Sir William Blackstone described it as follows:

“THE punishment of high treason in general is very solemn and terrible.
1. That the offender be drawn to the gallows, and not be carried or walk; though usually a sledge or hurdle is allowed, to preserve the offender from the extreme torment of being dragged on the ground or pavement.
2. That he be hanged by the neck, and then cut down alive.
3. That his entrails be taken out, and burned, while he is yet alive.
4. That his head be cut off.
5. That his body be divided into four parts.
6. That his head and quarters be at the king’s disposal.”

Treason was usually related to politics, from conflicts for power. In struggles for control, the losing faction would be branded as traitors. “Treason” seldom involved conspiracies with a foreign government for personal benefit. Frequently accused traitors had been among the country’s leaders, who were part of the losing political group in a power struggle.

Consideration of Treason by the Constitutional Convention

This history of the charge of “treason” was in the minds of many during the 1787 Philadelphia Constitutional Convention. Beyond history, personal experience with treason charges prompted on of the delegates to press hard for a constitutional limitation on the charge.



Attorney James Wilson’s Experience with Treason

The strongest advocate for a clear and limited definition of treason at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787 was Attorney James Wilson. During the revolution, Wilson was defense counsel for many Philadelphia men who were accused of treason because of relationships with the British while the latter occupied the city from September, 1777 to June, 1778.

After the occupation, 23 individuals were accused of treason to the state of Pennsylvania for their conduct during the British occupation. Of those, only three were convicted and two, Abraham Carlisle and John Roberts, clients of James Wilson, were executed. Carlisle and Roberts were elderly Quakers, and the experience of employing a charge of treason in a politically motivated fashion left an indelible mark on Wilson.

Wilson had gone against public sentiment in defending the accused traitors. The experience left Wilson with a strong conviction that the law of treason should be limited. The Constitution’s clause with the tight definition of treason, with specific requirements for evidence was in no small part due to Wilson’s work during the Constitutional Convention.

Treason In the United States Code

Congress has codified the constitutional definition of treason as follows:

18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

So you see, when you casually lob about the charge of TREASON! You are calling for the death of those in political disagreement with you, I would urge you to exhibit a little more consideration, modesty and restraint.

Removing Treason as a Political Charge: A Commitment to the Rule of Law

There is a story behind every word in the Constitution. It was clear to James Wilson, based upon the executions of two pacifist Quakers for treason that the potential for the political misuse of “treason” was not limited to the English. The constitutional definition was designed to remove the charge from politics and be only applied to clearly provable traitors to the United States. It was another demonstration of the founding commitment to the rule of law.

The Constitution does mention two other crimes. Article 1, section 8, gives Congress power to punish counterfeiting: “To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States” and piracy: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations”

Henry VIII had his wives Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard executed for “treason” allegedly because they were adulterers while married to the king.

Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was appointed as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, by George Washington. He served from 1789 to 1798.

Wilson’s home came under assault for his role in defending men in court accused of treason. He had first-hand knowledge of the passions easily pressed charges of treason could arouse.

http://www.shestokas.com/constituti...he-only-crime-defined-in-the-us-constitution/

 

Not necessarily, but the ECV margin would have certainly been closer to the popular vote total, and the wide divergence seems to be your complaint. CA has vast populations of Red voters, larger than some Red States. They are all voiceless in Presidential elections because silencing them gives greater power to the "progressives" in Sacramento. Which is fine, but the result is this disparity you find to be such a mar. God is not going to send Moses to Sacramento and demand they let his people go. And sans CA, Trump won the popular vote. The Electoral College is designed to ensure that a fringe regional candidate cannot carry a National Election simply by running up the score in a handful of provincial counties, and in this election, the Electoral College worked perfectly. Trump won 50% more states than Hillary and spanked her rather ample bottom quite soundly in the Electoral College.

 

Nonsense. Hillary lost the election when she lost PA. Line up the states by margin of victory and start allocating the ECV starting at the widest margins working toward the narrowing margins. Everyone can see that it is in the broad fields and beautiful rolling hills of PA that Hillary face-planted and Trump surpassed the 270 he needed to secure the Presidency.

So why was Hillary defeated in her bid for Obama's 3rd term?

i) You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. Barack Obama on PA voters and Midwest Voters.

ii) “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners out of work.” Hillary Clinton to PA voters.

iii) The Ruskies did somethin'!

How can you claim with a straight face that the explanatory power for iii) exceeds the sum of i) and ii)? Clearly something other than calm logic and reasonable contemplation drives you to this absurd conclusion.

And you completely dodged my other question: If Hillary and Obama wanted to drive PA voters away from them, what would they have done differently than unloading on them with statements like i) and ii)? Even you have to admit that it is amazing that they did this, and little surprise that it cost them the state. What did they think was going to happen?

 

They say it themselves, over and over. They WON, and HOW they win is unimportant, this being now a major tenet of the Republican Party.

 

When the Constitution was written none of the 13 original colonies were 'fringe' or 'provincial' to the rest. The conservative minority doesn't like to hear this but the rest of the country is provincial to CA now, not the other way around. The function of the Electoral College was to prevent runoffs between the 3 or more candidates they expected to be running since they not only didn't have Political Parties but some had even considered prohibiting them. The EC functioned in the exact opposite way it was designed to, electing us a demagogue instead of preventing one

 

I love it, all we have to do is eliminate the most populous state and we win, therefore we should have.

You see guys, the whole POINT of the election is supposedly who gets the most votes OVERALL, not who gets the most if you take most of your opposition's votes away, that's why we call it an election and not a coronation.

 

I don't know what were your specific suppositions about the OP matter and when did you suppose it?

 

What misinformation did the Russians coordinate with the Trump campaign that affected the outcome of the election. And not your suppositions and conjecture, specifics.

 

Ahh yes that is how it is done, Trump won the most votes OVERALL in twice as many states as Clinton.