http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-senate-idUSKCN1AX2K3 There is little serious talk being heard in Congress about removing Trump from office. Two House Democrats have introduced an article of impeachment alleging obstruction of justice by the president in connection with an ongoing investigation of possible ties between his 2016 campaign and Moscow. But Republicans control the House, as well as the Senate, and the article of impeachment has gained little traction.
"President Donald Trump railed against the investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election Saturday night into Sunday, sending off a stream of tweets attacking the FBI, CNN, the Democratic Party, his own national security adviser, former President Barack Obama and the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. He did not criticize Russia, or voice concern over Vladimir Putin's attempts to undermine U.S. elections." Politico. It sort of cracks me up (sort of), watching you GOPers rationalize and explain away this very bizarre behavior, but treason is impeachable. His oath is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United Sates", not protect and defend himself.
Wow, none of you can defend it - because you know the truth. It's indefensible. In the law we have a saying Res Ipsa Loquitor - "The thing speaks for itself." If you see a broken window above you and a crushed TV on the sidewalk below it, you can deduce what happened. The thing speaks for itself. The only one in the government who is not concerned, who doesn't condemn the Russians, is the Manchurian Candidate. The thing speaks for itself.
You throw the word "treason" around as if your suggested meaning is true. Treason would be attempting to overthrow the duly elected government. Sounds more like a certain vocal minority than anyone else.
So we have the left reviving McCarthyism (secret documents prove the Russians run the government) and now the Manchurian Candidate thing? Get a grip. Seriously. I guess journalism has simply gone off the deep end. Can't be trusted at all anymore. It's going to take generations to restore confidence in it. I cannot stomach CNN anymore. It's not watched on my TV anymore. MSNBC is barely any better. And Fox News is mindbogglingly stupid to watch 99% of the time. That speaks to "journalism." I use quotes deliberately.
You may want too shoot the messenger, but my opinion is by far not a minority one. And, for the record, I chose the word "treason" very purposefully. It is the only crime defined in the Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies,..." He' s clearly in their pocket. The thing speaks for itself.
Speaking of coopting the term for political purposes... And the accusation is truly an intent to suppress political dissent. Didn't support Clinton last time? You're a traitor! https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...-treason-actually-means-how-it-can-ncna848651 Americans have forgotten what 'treason' actually means — and how it can be abused Treasonous acts may be criminal, but criminal acts are almost never treason. As Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies,“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” The Founders went out of their way to define treason narrowly because they knew how it had been repeatedly abused in the past. For much of the pre-revolutionary period in England, the accusation was a means of suppressing political dissent and punishing political opponents for crimes as trivial as contemplating a king’s future death (what was known as “compassing”), or speaking ill of the king (“lèse majesté”). King Henry VIII even had two of his six wives executed for alleged adultery on the ground that such infidelity was, of itself, “treason.” The English abuse of treason was anathema to a nascent republic dedicated to the rule of law and the right of peaceful dissent. Thus, to ensure that treason could not likewise be co-opted for political or personal purposes, the Constitution’s drafters not only defined it precisely (it’s the only offense specifically defined in that document), but also specified that “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.” (Article III also limits the punishment that can be inflicted, even with a conviction.) ... Thus, to ensure that treason could not likewise be co-opted for political or personal purposes, the Constitution’s drafters not only defined it precisely (it’s the only offense specifically defined in that document), but also specified that “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.” (Article III also limits the punishment that can be inflicted, even with a conviction.) To be sure, there’s no law against the colloquial misuse of a legal term — nor should there ever be. But the more we use the t-word to refer to conduct that doesn’t remotely resemble the constitutional definition, the more we are — willfully — turning a blind eye to the sordid history of treason that led to its unique treatment in the U.S. Constitution.
That's such utter bullshit. He's done nothing to help the Russians accomplish any of their goals. Stories like this: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2017/12/27/trump_defies_putin_with_arms_to_ukraine_430050.html Trump Defies Putin With Arms to Ukraine Simply do not support your empty assertions.
OK, you tell me Denny, why is he the only one in government who won't condemn the Russians, let alone rally the country against their cyberwar against us?
