what should he US do? What can we do? I'm at a loss. It's the biggest threat we've faced to our way of life since Pearl Harbor (now that we know how strong al Qaeda really was.) We can't just pretend it didn't happen. But we can't have a do-over either. Thoughts?
This is the new reality. Russia's doing the same thing in France now. The US doesn't have much of a moral high ground on these issues. We helped topple a democratically elected government in Ukraine. There's evidence of our State Department and ambassador to Ukraine discussing who the US wants in power in Ukraine (Yatseniuk) and who they don't want (Klitschko) ... We have our fingerprints over the internal politics of several other sovereign nations. We even hack the private dealings of our our allies like Merkel in Germany and Rousseff in Brazil. The problem isn't Russia. The problem is that one of our major parties is turning a blind eye because it's benefiting them. That amounts to treason as far as I'm concerned. To have a major American party collaborating with an adversarial foreign government against their domestic foes is criminal. This should be a campaign issue for Democrats going forward. But instead of whining about Russia, Democrats need to use strong language like treason, sovereignty, the Constitution and democracy. Frame it in a way that makes it clear that Democrats are defending America against internal anti democracy collaborators. That is essentially what we're dealing with here. Our Constitution is under assault and Republicans don't seem to care.
Educate people + start an info war and do the same with the Russian electorate. It were mainly the business dealings. Tapped into from the NSA/CIA hub at the US embassy right next to Brandenburg Gate, the Reichstag and the Chancellory.
Inauguration would be a nice time to start. Peaceful protests across the country. Get some airtime and overshadow Trump's party. He won't be able to resist insulting protesters, which should just galvanize the protesters. Let that become a cycle. Nothing gets under Trump's skin like criticism he can't suppress.
If it's treason, then the first person who should spend the rest of his life in jail is Barack Obama. Because in the face of evidence from anonymous CIA sources, which have an impeccable record, and for which you are willing to accuse others of treason, he has "ordered a review". So, is Barack Obama the traitor-in-chief?
Also, perhaps as well-read a conspiracy theorist as Trump ought to know what happens when you cross the CIA.
Dude, you really need to read. Maybe read twice next time. @Boloni86 has accused Republicans of treason because they've turned a blind eye to Russian hacking of our election. The only way that is even in the realm of possible truth is if it actually happened. @Boloni86 is convinced. Well, if it happened, why isn't Barack Obama acting on it? A review is just delaying what's already been asserted as true. Of course, if you don't automatically believe anonymous leaks from the CIA with really interesting timing and instead would like the truth to come out, then a review is completely appropriate. But that's incompatible with accusing people of treason on December 10.
No, it's how the bureaucracy works. Really. It's how it works. Individual agencies make a conclusion. The report is corroborated. It works up the chain. It culminates in a final report on the president's desk. https://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+the+bureaucracy+works
Exactly, there is a thing called Conservative PC, which is Patriotic correctness. If people question or doubt something, cover it in the flag, love of America and American exceptionalism. The Dems should use that to beat the Repubs over the head with. Drag out speeches from Reagan and Bush 1 and 2 or go back to cold war stories. Beat them over the head with this.
So you are saying that we don't have a definitive report on what's happened, and, if I may put words in your mouth, aren't declaring anyone guilty of treason just yet? Seems right.
You're tying yourself in knots. Considering the toxic rhetoric that Trump has used on his opponents, the word treason is still essentially treating him with kid gloves. Trust me ... he will say much worse things on the campaign trail. Anyways, I never said that anyone is criminally liable ... although they may yet prove to be. All I'm saying is that this exposes their hypocrisy of being the 'America first' movement. Even if nobody on the Trump side is a direct accomplice, they are actively downplaying the significance of a foreign government meddling in our elections. The fact that the meddling happened is beyond doubt at this point. The Russians barely even tried to hide it. Not taking this seriously is ignoring the primary role of the federal government, which is to protect the country from external threats. Sure, treason is a strong word. But this is the battlefield that Trump chose. The word 'treason' should be used because it's a strong rhetorical word that cuts through the BS. It's not just about the election. It's also about how this presidency seems to be set up in direct violation of the emolument clause in the Constitution. He has basically launched an all out assault on the Bill of Rights ... freedom of religion, freedom of press, right to trial, due process etc ... He's on tape bragging about committing the crime of assaulting women. He has attacked the voters of this country as 'illegitimate'. He has announced cabinet appointees that are hostile to the departments they want to serve. He has been hostile to international laws like the Geneva Conventions. He has been hostile to our alliances and commitments with fellow Democratic nations. Using some strong rhetorical language is very appropriate right now.
Uh, yeah you did. Treason is a crime, a damn serious one. You don't just get to throw that word around without any evidence, of which all of us have a collective zero so far. Good thing then that the President has gone with the "order a review" strategy instead of the "use the word treason because it's a strong word despite no evidence" one. None of what you wrote matters, because you opened with "treason". Well done.
For a guy who was up in arms about the threat he believed Clinton posed, @MasterShake29 seems weirdly blasé about the threat Trump poses. It's like, as long as all this takes down the previous establishment -- Dems, the GOP, whoever -- it's all good, no matter the costs. I just don't get it -- or maybe I do. But it's becoming more and more bizarre, and even disturbing.
Oh please .... We're talking about Trump here. The guy that called Obama a Muslim Kenyan citizen with no evidence. The guy that accused Ted Cruz's dad of being involved in the Kennedy assassination. The guy that accused Hillary of having Parkinsons or AIDS or whatever ... I don't have time for his precious feelings. I have no problem calling him treasonous ... He's a big boy and he'll handle it. Right now this is still just a rhetorical battle. He's not president, so by definition he hasn't had the power yet to do all the harm he's promised. All I have to go on is what he's promised and how he's conducted himself, which is a direct assault on America as far as I'm concerned. If he comes to power and doesn't follow through on his rhetoric, then I have no problem. I don't automatically call any Republican president treasonous. I had no problem with Bush 1.0. I do think Cheney should be in federal prison though ...
Maybe this will have an effect. You know Trump will react with tweets, which will keep the story alive and maybe even get the media to cover it. But look, Republican leaders haven't exactly resisted Trump's more bizarre actions before or since the election. I don't see how this isn't turned into another partisan issue which should be beyond that, like whether climate change is real.
Dude. Trump poses a really bad threat. But we're not discussing that right now. An anonymous evidence-free allegation has been made that makes Trump look bad is something I'm not going to jump on top of. Barack Obama ordered a review, and rightly so. Hopefully it's resolved quickly and if it supports Russia's involvement then we get strong evidence supporting that conclusion.
Alright, last try. So Trump is a bad person who is likely going to do some bad stuff, and thus let's believe everything that anyone accuses him of? That's an excellent strategy if your goal is to enable him to wreck the country. Well done. Hillary Clinton did some bad stuff and would likely do more as President. If she won, should I have all of the sudden believed PizzaGate? No, of course not, even though we have the same evidence (i.e. none) for both. I don't need conspiracy theories, I have well-documented words and actions. Sure, calling Trump names on some soccer message board won't hurt him (probably). That doesn't mean it's ok or smart. And to be clear, it's neither of those. Attack Trump for what he's done and what he promises to do. There's plenty on both counts that's really easy to find. You can do that using his own words and actions without having to rely on anonymous evidence-free leaks from organizations with a history of both lying and doing exactly what they're accusing someone else of. You can do that without accusing large amounts of people of a serious crime with absolutely no evidence.
Some skepticism of the CIA and American intelligence is warranted and healthy. But you're way beyond that here. Trust but verify is one thing. False until definitively and publicly proven is another. Fully casting aside and dismissing the CIA's findings because you haven't personally seen the evidence, and you can't personally name the names of the people who did the digging, is completely without warrant. I mean, look at that most recent post! You're effectively comparing these CIA findings to Pizzagate -- as if these things both deserve equal skepticism. That is just crazy. Plain crazy. As for my larger point, I do think the attitude you appear to evince is effecting a lot of your thinking, including on this topic. You've taken this as an opportunity to insinuate blame on Obama, as if he might have mishandled this. That despite no evidence, appears to be a reasonable conclusion in your eyes. Fine, you're a skeptic. But you sure wield that skepticism in convenient fashion to suit your whims.
Nah ... I know that what I'm saying sounds like the left wing Tea Party. I know it's unbecoming. But I'm OK with that. These are hyper partisan times. I'll call him a traitor ... and worse. Corrupt, criminal etc ... I don't need a conviction for me to go there rhetorically. His dismissive attitude towards Russia's actions is enough for me. I don't feel like I'm asking for much. All I'm asking for is that the government in power stand up for America's sovereignty, America's democracy and to take this threat seriously.
How have I blamed Obama on this? I've said multiple times that ordering a review is exactly the right move, and when it's done, which is hopefully quickly (by electoral college vote quickly would be wonderful, but that's probably wishful thinking) and with as much evidence as possibly be published. I am optimistic that will happen. PizzaGate deserves more skepticism because unlike this CIA leak (which just happens to come the day after the review is ordered, surely not a coincidence), there is evidence it's bullshit. But the combined positive evidence for both is a leak from an organization with an agenda (which appears to be the opposite of the FBI's agenda, which seems not great) that came with no evidence. I'm not saying that evidence doesn't exist, it very well could. When it's published, I'll react. If it agrees with the leak, then that's a real problem. If we had all taken the same tack with the lead up to the Iraq War, then there wouldn't have been one. We can't prove anything right now. So what's the harm in not going insane until we can?