Arrest Trump for Treason

[X_4AD_84]

This has gone way too far.

Here we have an undeclared foreign agent, who still has not released his likely incriminating tax returns (e.g. showing foreign sourced funding). He's repeatedly shown himself to be a promoter of the USA's most substantial current foreign rival.

Beyond that, he's violated secrecy in revealing content from the security briefing.

And now, he's revealed a diabolical plan to overthrow the US government from within, by enlisting some cabal of military leaders or would be leaders who would be directly loyal to him in a personal arrangement outwith the actual chain of command and civilian oversight mechanisms. This last bit is reminiscent of Stalin, Hitler, Franco and Pinochet.

Let's face it. He's a traitor. Why wait for him to do further damage? Even if he loses the election, look at all the evil seeds he's sown. That crop will sprout for years if not decades, resulting in unavoidable violent domestic engagements and outright warfare.

HUAC 2.0! Start with Trump, go on from there.

Stop. The. Madness.

[naf140230]

(09-08-2016, 04:53 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: This has gone way too far.

Here we have an undeclared foreign agent, who still has not released his likely incriminating tax returns (e.g. showing foreign sourced funding). He's repeatedly shown himself to be a promoter of the USA's most substantial current foreign rival.

Beyond that, he's violated secrecy in revealing content from the security briefing.

And now, he's revealed a diabolical plan to overthrow the US government from within, by enlisting some cabal of military leaders or would be leaders who would be directly loyal to him in a personal arrangement outwith the actual chain of command and civilian oversight mechanisms. This last bit is reminiscent of Stalin, Hitler, Franco and Pinochet.

Let's face it. He's a traitor. Why wait for him to do further damage? Even if he loses the election, look at all the evil seeds he's sown. That crop will sprout for years if not decades, resulting in unavoidable violent domestic engagements and outright warfare.

HUAC 2.0! Start with Trump, go on from there.

Stop. The. Madness.

Don't you know how difficult it would be to arrest him?

[Bob Butler 54]

I'm not really expecting an arrest before election day, but I would not be surprised by an impeachment if his presidential act is similar to his candidate act.

[pbrower2a]

(09-09-2016, 04:43 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-09-2016, 02:42 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

(09-08-2016, 04:53 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: This has gone way too far.

Here we have an undeclared foreign agent, who still has not released his likely incriminating tax returns (e.g. showing foreign sourced funding). He's repeatedly shown himself to be a promoter of the USA's most substantial current foreign rival.

Beyond that, he's violated secrecy in revealing content from the security briefing.

And now, he's revealed a diabolical plan to overthrow the US government from within, by enlisting some cabal of military leaders or would be leaders who would be directly loyal to him in a personal arrangement outwith the actual chain of command and civilian oversight mechanisms. This last bit is reminiscent of Stalin, Hitler, Franco and Pinochet.

Let's face it. He's a traitor. Why wait for him to do further damage? Even if he loses the election, look at all the evil seeds he's sown. That crop will sprout for years if not decades, resulting in unavoidable violent domestic engagements and outright warfare.

HUAC 2.0! Start with Trump, go on from there.

Stop. The. Madness.

Don't you know how difficult it would be to arrest him?

This is an unprecedented situation. Never before in US history has there been a major Presidential candidate who was a foreign agent. Unprecedented situations call for unprecedented action. Such is the nature of a 4T.

It may be appropriate to assume that he will lose, let him become irrelevant except as a joke, and say little about him when he dies.

He shows signs of senile dementia.

[Anthony '58]

But don't you know that conservatives never get accused of treason?

[naf140230]

(10-07-2016, 07:22 AM)Anthony Wrote: But don't you know that conservatives never get accused of treason?

Most conservatives do not commit treason.

[Eric the Green]

Obama administration has now explicitly charged Russia with hacking into US emails, which Trump has said is a good thing.

[pbrower2a]

(10-07-2016, 07:22 AM)Anthony Wrote: But don't you know that conservatives never get accused of treason?

Few conservatives commit treason except by the standards of revolutionaries who just took power and have the firing squad or guillotine prepared for mass killing of the figures of the old regime.

[pbrower2a]

(10-07-2016, 07:22 AM)Anthony Wrote: But don't you know that conservatives never get accused of treason?

Few conservatives commit treason except by the standards of revolutionaries who just took power and have the firing squad or guillotine prepared for mass killing of the figures of the old regime.

[Bronsin]

(09-08-2016, 04:53 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: This has gone way too far.

Here we have an undeclared foreign agent, who still has not released his likely incriminating tax returns (e.g. showing foreign sourced funding). He's repeatedly shown himself to be a promoter of the USA's most substantial current foreign rival.

Beyond that, he's violated secrecy in revealing content from the security briefing.

And now, he's revealed a diabolical plan to overthrow the US government from within, by enlisting some cabal of military leaders or would be leaders who would be directly loyal to him in a personal arrangement outwith the actual chain of command and civilian oversight mechanisms. This last bit is reminiscent of Stalin, Hitler, Franco and Pinochet.

Let's face it. He's a traitor. Why wait for him to do further damage? Even if he loses the election, look at all the evil seeds he's sown. That crop will sprout for years if not decades, resulting in unavoidable violent domestic engagements and outright warfare.

HUAC 2.0! Start with Trump, go on from there.

Stop. The. Madness.

Are you serious? A foreign agent?

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-19-2016, 12:16 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: There is a whole protocol whereby lobbyists and political candidates must register as foreign agents if they are on payrolls of, supported by, or otherwise have significant conflicts of interest involving other countries. This is especially important in cases where the foreign country is adversarial or has problematic foreign relations with the US. This is news to you? In any case, Trump is doubly cursed since he's a foreign agent who has not registered and therefore is misrepresenting his conflict of interest.

Just out of curiosity, do you know off hand if Hillary is registered? From what little digging I've done it seems like the Clinton Foundation is doing good work and getting more of the donated funds to those in need than most such charities. Still, the foundation is moving large amounts of money from one country to another. In principle I've no objection in taking petrodollars from Middle East royalty to build schools for girls in Africa, but should she be registered?

[Bob Butler 54]

"Lock her up" has for some time been a theme of the Trump followers.  In the second debate, The Donald himself explicitly threatened her with jail.  Main stream media, the Internet and various Hillary proxies answered with outrage.  In a democracy, winners of elections do not manipulate the justice system to suppress or detain political opponents.  That's what dictators do.  That's not done in the United States of America.

This thread puts lots of shoes on the opposite foot.  Trump does seem to think himself above the law.  His not registering the Trump Foundation in New York and using its funds to benefit himself and his operations might stand as well known examples.  There are other problems pointed out here.

To what extent should important political figures be immunized from valid prosecutions?  I would hope prosecutors would do their job without political interference.  I have a feeling that Hillary's problems were investigated with extra vigor with the intent to create scandal and distrust.  Trump has some real legal problems that have come to light, but there have been no congressional committee meetings to publicly investigate while producing ugly publicity.

I am wondering if Michelle's meme, "When they go low, we go high," can be taken too far.  I don't know that prosecutors should be filing cases in the middle of the campaign. What would happen should the attorney general of New York show up to serve papers and perp walk The Donald in the middle of a campaign rally?  If you were the lead agent of Trump's Secret Service detail, what would you do?  Are candidates for the presidency above the law?  Are they above prosecutors affiliated with opposing parties pulling publicity stunts?

It makes for an interesting daydream, though.

[pbrower2a]

(10-19-2016, 01:06 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: "Lock her up" has for some time been a theme of the Trump followers.  In the second debate, The Donald himself explicitly threatened her with jail.  Main stream media, the Internet and various Hillary proxies answered with outrage.  In a democracy, winners of elections do not manipulate the justice system to suppress or detain political opponents.  That's what dictators do.  That's not done in the United States of America.

It is best that we excuse 'understandable errors of judgment'. Our political leaders deserve some protection from arrests for trivial misconduct. When a political leader does something that completely shreds his credibility (bribery, embezzlement, perjury, or personal violence), then criminal prosecution is reasonable and expected.

Quote:This thread puts lots of shoes on the opposite foot.  Trump does seem to think himself above the law.  His not registering the Trump Foundation in New York and using its funds to benefit himself and his operations might stand as well known examples.  There are other problems pointed out here.

if he loses the election, then we might as well ignore him forever. Should the crotch-grabbing constitute "sexual assault", then maybe it is best that we don't sully the system with a prosecution of him.

Yes, he is a crook, and the one who has gotten furthest in the political system.

Quote:To what extent should important political figures be immunized from valid prosecutions?  I would hope prosecutors would do their job without political interference.  I have a feeling that Hillary's problems were investigated with extra vigor with the intent to create scandal and distrust.  Trump has some real legal problems that have come to light, but there have been no congressional committee meetings to publicly investigate while producing ugly publicity.

Bribery, embezzlement, official corruption, violent crime...

Quote:I am wondering if Michelle's meme, "When they go low, we go high," can be taken too far.  I don't know that prosecutors should be filing cases in the middle of the campaign. What would happen should the attorney general of New York show up to serve papers and perp walk The Donald in the middle of a campaign rally?  If you were the lead agent of Trump's Secret Service detail, what would you do?  Are candidates for the presidency above the law?  Are they above prosecutors affiliated with opposing parties pulling publicity stunts?

It makes for an interesting daydream, though.

After the election, if at all. We do not need a witch-hunt or its perception.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-19-2016, 09:41 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: OK, debate #3 is over.

And hell is really freezing over now.

I never would have imagined during my past Clinton-Derangement-Syndrome days that I would be sitting here in 2016 heartily agreeing with Hillary Clinton as she called out the GOP candidate for being a Kremlin-operative faux "Right" criminal.

We certainly live in interesting times!

Does this imply that hell is endothermic?  

[Einzige]

The fascists are talking about a March on Rome when Il Douche loses.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...cb305eac17

Quote:Trump supporters are talking about civil war. Could a loss provide the spark?
Trump tells supporters to 'watch' St. Louis, Philadelphia and Chicago for voter fraud  Play Video0:39

Donald Trump called supporters in Grand Junction, Colo., to watch the polls in St. Louis, Philadelphia and Chicago. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)
By Dana Milbank Opinion writer OpinionsOctober 18
COLORADO SPRINGS

We are three weeks from the election, and very close to the edge.

Retiree Gerald Miller, a volunteer at Donald Trump’s rally here, is confident his man will win on Nov. 8 — unless there’s foul play.

Miller, wearing an NRA pin and a tea party cap over his long hair, shares Trump’s concern that the election may be “rigged” by the Clinton campaign. “It is enough to skew the election. They can swing it either way,” he said, particularly because Hillary Clinton may have “the FBI working for her” in committing the fraud.

So what happens if Clinton is declared the winner? “Donald Trump is going to holler fraud if he doesn’t win,” figured Miller, who is white and says he has PTSD from “racial violence” he suffered in the military. “I think we’re on the verge of a civil war, a racial war. This could be the spark that sets it off.”

[Eric the Green]

I don't think either the black man in the white house now, nor the sharp old lady after Jan.20, is going to have much patience for fascist marchers and shooters goaded by the Trumpet. And if Trump incites it, he'll be arrested.

He kind-of walked back his talk about not supporting the election winner today, saying he will sue if it looks like fraud or ask for a recount if its close, or something like that. His debate statement was a major gaffe, according to most of the TV reporters and pundits. I imagine he may lose a couple of points in the polls over it, if even that much.

[Bronsin]

(10-20-2016, 08:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think either the black man in the white house now, nor the sharp old lady after Jan.20, is going to have much patience for fascist marchers and shooters goaded by the Trumpet.

Where are these fascist marchers and shooter right now? The only marchers, protesters, and shooters out there right now are all on the left in Black lives matter, blocking highways, and shooting at cops.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-20-2016, 08:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think either the black man in the white house now, nor the sharp old lady after Jan.20, is going to have much patience for fascist marchers and shooters goaded by the Trumpet. And if Trump incites it, he'll be arrested.

In the Tom Clancy novel, Executive Orders, there is a minor subplot.  An ex vice president steals his resignation letter then claimed he never resigned, that after the president's death he was indeed the president.

A minor subplot.  There were scenes scattered about the book where this guy was talking to reporters, opposing the hero's acts of governance, filing court cases, and otherwise being a tiny annoyance.  The government pretty much ignored him.  They had a surplus of real problems.

***

I suspect any Hillary inauguration parade won't be as grand or well attended as Obama's.  The first female president doesn't seem as grand and glorious as the first minority president.  It'll still be grand enough.  For my own amusement, I'm imagining Trump organizing his own parade, and timing it to arrive at 1600 Pennsylvania just ahead of the Democratic parade.  As the two presidential parties skirmish over possession of the reviewing stand, two marching bands coming from opposite directions clash into each other head on...

Did I mention I'm starting to have problems taking Trump seriously?

[Eric the Green]

(10-21-2016, 05:51 AM)Bronsin Wrote:

(10-20-2016, 08:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think either the black man in the white house now, nor the sharp old lady after Jan.20, is going to have much patience for fascist marchers and shooters goaded by the Trumpet.

Where are these fascist marchers and shooters right now? The only marchers, protesters, and shooters out there right now are all on the left in Black lives matter, blocking highways, and shooting at cops.

We had a right-wing shooter in Dallas and in New Orleans. We had one at a South Carolina, trying to start a race war by shooting some black Christian church women. I don't know what the Trumpsters have in mind if they lose, but we've already seen militias and gun fanatics threaten to shoot people. The black lives matter people don't shoot people; they demonstrate and sometimes riot because their people are getting shot down for no reason. Riots can't be allowed, but police violence is not tolerable in a free society.

[pbrower2a]

(10-20-2016, 08:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think either the black man in the white house now, nor the sharp old lady after Jan.20, is going to have much patience for fascist marchers and shooters goaded by the Trumpet. And if Trump incites it, he'll be arrested.

He kind-of walked back his talk about not supporting the election winner today, saying he will sue if it looks like fraud or ask for a recount if its close, or something like that. His debate statement was a major gaffe, according to most of the TV reporters and pundits. I imagine he may lose a couple of points in the polls over it, if even that much.

It is most likely the crotch-grabbing that has pushed many conservatives to decide to split their tickets.  Liberals were never going to vote for Trump, anyway; his admissions of sordid conduct were not going to change any liberal votes. It may also get people out to vote who don't usually vote, and those voters are usually Democrats.

The most fervent supporters of Donald Trump can't believe that their candidate can lose. If he does end up short, then it is because Democratic GOTV measures got votes of people not legitimately voting or even non-existence. After all, we know well how crooked the urban areas are from all the apocryphal stories. To them Hillary Clingon cannot have won without cheating; no decent person could fail to vote for the successful businessman.

I look at the poling data and I see Donald Trump doing a mediocre job in getting the votes of what used to be the most reliable demographic of Republican voters (well-educated white people), extremely well among under-educated white people, and badly among just about every other group of people. I see Gary Johnson having pulled much likely support from Trump initially and him losing that largely to Hillary Clinton.

The support for Donald Trump has been pared to a fanatical core beyond reach. That core is extremely delighted with the near certainty that he will be the next President. But that core of support is out of touch with reality.  That's the lily-white "Real America", rural America in which people are proud to be able to read and write, believe in Bibles, and keep guns, that Sarah Palin praised in 2008. That "Real America" is reactionary to an extreme degree.

But most Americans don't live in the "Real America" any more. In 2008 Barack Obama lost by all but about 65 counties, independent cities, and the District of Columbia. Those bailiwicks, I found, were the 65 most densely-populated counties in the United States as a group. Obama did not win them all, and some (Fredericksburg. Harrisonburg, and Charlottesville in Virginia) aren't large. But they include such behemoths as counties containing Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, Miami, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Detroit, Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, the Twin Cities, Denver, Seattle, San Francisco, and Las Vegas. I look at the Obama maps of victory against the Eisenhower maps of victory and I see Obama winning almost everything that Eisenhower won in the '50s except for the states in which the agriculture is heavily ranching...Texas, Arizona, and several states with few electoral votes.

Eisenhower generally won the best-educated parts of America. That was enough to win him such states as Massachusetts and Minnesota, the two hold-out states in the 40-state landslides of Nixon and Reagan. Obama won that part of America in 2008 and 2012. America has so changed in its partisanship that Obama has won for the Democrats many constituencies that went for Eisenhower.

Rural America knows the cities mostly for violent crimes committed by ethnic minorities. As the saying goes, "If it bleeds, it leads". That's what is on the TV stations that rural America gets, because TV signals in rural America often travel 70 miles or so to get to rural areas.  Rural America does not know the reality of the black middle class, a large and inoffensive group of people, or that the rapidly-growing Hispanic populations are making headway into American life. Education, skill, and enterprise -- that's how people get ahead.

Cornfields and cattle pastures don't vote for President. People do, and they are in the not-so-natural places full of asphalt and concrete.