Intel Expert: Trump 'One Step Away From Treason'

[UCmeNdc]

Malcolm Nance took to Twitter today to slam Donald Trump after the torrent of love from Trump to Julian Assange and Putin.

1. Held my suspicions but now convinced Trump is fully aware that both Russian intelligence & Assange elected him. Praise=Pay back.

2. Trump was an unwitting Russian asset until July 27th when he asked for Clinton emails he acknowldgd they were working in his interest.

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/01/intel-expert-trump-one-step-away-treason


Have Trump put under oath and testify officially.

[uponit7771]

1. "... giving aide and comfort...", I don't know what else to describe this shit

[PearliePoo2]

2. Nance wants to nail his ass. I saw him on TV talking about the perfect personality to compromise.

Stooge DJT fits the bill, like putty in Pooty's hands. Nance wants the tax returns now!

[Raster]

3. TRUMP. IS. A. RUSSIAN. ASSET...

...He is already well over the line.

[True_Blue]

8. My thoughts exactly

Trump crossed that line a long time ago.

[LaydeeBug]

10. *wins* the internet. nt

[treestar]

19. ...

[IMG][/IMG]

[CentralMass]

26. That's a keeper.

[pangaia]

28. A modern day Manchurian Candidate..

[woodsprite]

4. Well, I hope he crosses that trip-wire before January 20th. n/t

[2naSalit]

5. +1

[meow2u3]

6. One step away from treason?

He IS a goddam traitor!!!

[GoCubsGo]

9. Yep. I have little doubt he already crossed the line.

Probably more than once.

[triron]

7. knr

[Crunchy Frog]

11. I think he's stepped well over that line.

[triron]

12. One step away only

in terms of not being in a declared war
which only Russia apparently declared
but we (congress, MSM) pretend not there.

[onenote]

13. Do you support Democrats in Congress introducing a formal declaration of war against Russia?

And demanding that all diplomatic relations with Russia be severed?

[UCmeNdc]

14. The United States cannot go to war with Russia, First the GOP has to admit the US is under attack

You have half the country still not believing the Trump deception.

The Democratic members of congress are going to be steamrolled by the Trump administration with GOP helpers.

[onenote]

15. That doesn't answer the question

There is nothing that would prevent Democratic members of the House and Senate from introducing a resolution formally declaring war on Russia.

For Trump to fit the Constitutional definition of a traitor, he must either have been levying actual war (i.e., taking up arms) against the United States. Or he must have been giving aid and comfort to an enemy. While enemy is not defined in the Constitution, it is defined elsewhere in the United States Code: the term "enemy" means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States." The term "hostilities" is defined as "any conflict subject to the laws of war."

So if you want to go after Trump for "treason" the first step is for the US to make Russia an enemy for purpose of the treason clause by engaging in a conflict subject to the laws of war. And the clearest way to do that is for Congress to declare that a state of war exists with Russia.

I should add that a question that has been debated without clear resolution is whether a president could veto a declaration of war...

[brush]

31. Ok, we'll just go with sediton then. Treason is next.

[triron]

16. knr

[Cha]

17. Why isn't he up over his eyeballs in Treason?

[triron]

18. The media is complicit

Dem response seems wimpy to me regardless.
Republican leadership is obstructing big time!

[onenote]

21. Because Treason has a very specific, very narrow Constitutional definition

Something that is important to those of us who have been labeled traitors in the past for refusing to serve in the Vietnam War, or counseling others not to serve, or even for protesting the war and blocking the entrance to military bases etc.

Crimes likely were committed by the Russians and it would be no surprise if Trump was somehow complicit in those crimes. But whatever his participation was in those crimes, it won't constitute treason under the Constitution.

I've explained it elsewhere, for those that care.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8416159

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2671875

[Cha]

22. Thanks

[triron]

23. Thanks for this

But seems he is likely guilty of some law (perhaps the Logan act?) and could be shown by a thorough investigation?

[onenote]

24. There absolutely needs to be a full investigation and charges brought if Trump is shown to have

participated in criminal activity. The history of Logan Act prosecutions makes it an unlikely vehicle for charges against Trump.

[yodermon]

29. Thanks onenote

I wasn't aware that Adam Yahiye Gadahn was actually convicted of treason.

[onenote]

33. Gadahn actually wasn't convicted. He was indicted in absentia

and then killed by a drone while in Pakistan.

[brush]

32. We'll settle for sedition then.

[triron]

34. How is that different from treason legally?

Just asking

[brush]

35. Sedition is doing or saying something to overthrow established authority very serious. Treason ...

is even more serious. It overlaps with sedition in doing and saying things to overthrow the government and adds working with a foreign enemy.

Treason is punishable by death, don't know about for sedition.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

20. K&R nt

[triron]

25. +1

[liberal N proud]

27. But there will be no one to prosecute the orange turd.

[pangaia]

30. THAT is his intent...

[tanyev]

36. And that step is more like a very short ramp with a low slope.

A very slippery low slope.

[UCmeNdc]

37. Trump seems to always escape punishment

Slippery Com Man....

[triron]

38. Charmed?

[triron]

39. knr