I might have been watching the longest and have never seen this before. So many walk too close to the line if not over it. http://www.catholic.org/news/ae/celebrity/story.php?id=73361
I got a security alert from Windows 10 after the first two paragraphs of the link and it wouldn't load the rest....my computer doesn't like the article
When trump said "march on Washington, we can't let this stand! revolution!" after the 2012 election, was that sedition? Seems like he was trying to incite people to rebel against the authority of the state.
The definition of sedition is conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state. There may be some fringe lunatics that I'm not aware of, but I haven't seen anybody promoting rebellion. I have seen plenty of discussion of using the constitutional process of impeachment to throw Trump out of office. That is not sedition. In this instance, it may well be patriotism.
Naw, more like beginning to run for election. http://thelawdictionary.org/article/seditious-conduct-freedom-speech-three-things-know/
Well, that make one of the two of us not a patriot. I think the leaks and lack of cooperations by the supposedly non political fixed US government personnel are sedition, perhaps even treason. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-15/verge-treason-us-spies-withhold-intelligence-trump The leaks to the media about Flynn, who committed no crime, were intended to disrupt the ability of the lawfully elected administration from being able to govern. Using information obtained by special privilege granted only to the Federal Government, using techniques only lawfully available to the Federal government. However, making this information generally available to the public is only lawfully done by the executives of the government. Leaking it to discredit the executive is sedition.
How do you know? If there was nothing wrong with his behavior, why was he fired? Why did the AG warn Trump he could be blackmailed? Don't you think it's a problem that information exists that discredits the executive? Does keeping that information secret really solve that problem? barfo
Just to be clear, I was referring to calls for impeachment, not any illegal activities. I'm no legal expert, but I would suspect that the folks that leaked the information about the phone calls between Flynn and Russia are in violation of federal laws, at a minimum. Flynn, himself, may be in violation of a law that prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments since it appears he was making those calls before Tump's inauguration and himself being confirmed as National Security Adviser. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/opinions/did-flynn-break-law-pate-opinion/
I think you make the assumption that they actually have the ability to govern...which is a legitimate concern for the country
Yes I do. And the seditious action is intended to imped their ability to govern, without regard to their actual ability. It maybe a legitimate concern to some of your countrymen, but not all. I have no evidence they cannot do the job and I don't think you have much either. Concern yes, I acknowledge you have, but the noise level from your companions is far out of proportion with reason, in respect to a new administration. It is difficult for a band of rabble to commit sedition, but they can easily and unwisely support it without much pain.
Sigh! OK Deep Throat was and FBI agent that actually knew about a crime that had been committed. The whole nation knew about the crime that had been committed we just did not know who did it. He leaked the story to the media via Bob Woodward The fink that leak the story about Flynn knows of no crime nor does anyone else in the Nation. He leaked the story of Flynn talking to the Russian via the phone and that is all we fucking know. He use information gathered privy US Intel only and should never be released to the public unless the Executives authorize it. Flynn talking to the Russians is not illegal. MarAzul talking to the Russians is not illegal. However, the media would like you to think it might be, just like Sly is doing comparing it to Watergate.
You don't know that. There is a crime, by the way: the hack of the DNC computers. Which is actually quite a similar crime as the Watergate burglary, just updated for the modern era. There was a time when we knew very little about Watergate, too. Leaks helped us learn the full scope of the deal. And Nixon talking to Haldeman (or was it Erlichmann) was not illegal. Turns out what he talked about was illegal. So, we won't know until we find out what Flynn talked about whether it was illegal. It's of some interest that he already has been caught lying about what he talked about, though. barfo
You do know that "they" know what the conversation was about. Obviously nothing that would be unlawful since no charges have been filed.
