Flynn has promised to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians

[realibrad]

No you daft twat, it is not collusion at all and even if it was, collusion is perfectly legal.

You have two options now, go find the laws that says that collusion when it is NOT treasonous is illegal and present them to me or shut the fuck up.

Pick one of the two.

Its pretty easy. If Trump agreed to work with Russia and take Russia's side in say UN votes, it would not be aid to an enemy but would be collusion. You are welcome twat.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Bwahahahaha!

Meanwhile, he's made a deal to testify against Trump, which means he's pled to a lower, reduced charge and others were dropped.

But keep on pulling for the Trumpster!

That looks like a normal everyday press briefing.

 

[realibrad]

You mean, both sides?


Amazing. Who would've thought you'd make the exact same post 6,220 times.

In this one thing yes. The right has far more that I dislike. Only recently has the left also wanted to limit speech. Freedom of speech was for a very long time a left victory.

The left has a long way to go to catch the right in my view. Iraq alone is a big fucking gap to close.

But hey, good on you for proving the exact point being made. Its not okay to point out when you side does something bad, only when the enemy does.

 

[realibrad]

No, legally its collusion. In the us collusion is inherently illegal.

I meant to say not inherently. Forgot "not".

 

[Younigue]

What is going on with this thread. Of course treason is on the table but will any one go down for that? Probably not.

It's not just a question of lying to the F.B.I., there's also what was being offered (sanctions?) for information on Hillary. Unless there are people convinced Puti is just a concerned (Russian) citizen looking out for the best interest of America (because of his warm and fuzziness) and Hillary (his nemesis) meant harm to her own country (not his).

There is no doubt the depth of corruption Trump is all about absolutely leads to treason. He hates Americans. He especially hates his base but they are useful.

Ugh, Trumpublicans truly are traitors and some of the ugliest human beings to be walking the earth.

 

[cytg111]

Trumps brain

The tweets will be magnificent!!!

 

[J.Wilkins]

Its pretty easy. If Trump agreed to work with Russia and take Russia's side in say UN votes, it would not be aid to an enemy but would be collusion. You are welcome twat.

Who the FUCK is talking about Trump? This discussion is and always was about Flynn's contacts and whether or not they were treasonous.

If you don't want to be part of that discussion, go back and remove your replies because that is the discussion you chose to partake in.

 

[J.Wilkins]

What is going on with this thread. Of course treason is on the table but will any one go down for that? Probably not.

It's not just a question of lying to the F.B.I., there's also what was being offered (sanctions?) for information on Hillary. Unless there are people convinced Puti is just a concerned (Russian) citizen looking out for the best interest of America (because of his warm and fuzziness) and Hillary (his nemesis) meant harm to her own country (not his).

There is no doubt the depth of corruption Trump is all about absolutely leads to treason. He hates Americans. He especially hates his base but they are useful.

Ugh, Trumpublicans truly are traitors and some of the ugliest human beings to be walking the earth.

The problem is that realitwat stepped into a discussion without understanding what it was about.

It's the same as always, his brain isn't firing on all 1 cylinders.

 

[realibrad]

Who the FUCK is talking about Trump? This discussion is and always was about Flynn's contacts and whether or not they were treasonous.

If you don't want to be part of that discussion, go back and remove your replies because that is the discussion you chose to partake in.

Jesus. Flynn also did not commit treason. If Flynn had commit treason, and Trump collusion, Treason would be bigger and they would go for that.

What evidence, not speculation, do you have that Treason was committed. I would bet you have nothing other than your hat made out of foil.

 

[realibrad]

What is going on with this thread. Of course treason is on the table but will any one go down for that? Probably not.

It's not just a question of lying to the F.B.I., there's also what was being offered (sanctions?) for information on Hillary. Unless there are people convinced Puti is just a concerned (Russian) citizen looking out for the best interest of America (because of his warm and fuzziness) and Hillary (his nemesis) meant harm to her own country (not his).

There is no doubt the depth of corruption Trump is all about absolutely leads to treason. He hates Americans. He especially hates his base but they are useful.

Ugh, Trumpublicans truly are traitors and some of the ugliest human beings to be walking the earth.

Again, Treason has a very specific definition in the US and as of right now it does not appear to be Treason, just collusion.

For it to be Treason it would need to fit this...

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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."

Flynn did not try to levy war, and did not give aid or comfort to a US enemy. The only thing close is the 2nd part, but that would require the US to declare Russia an enemy which would be huge and will not happen. At best it looks to be collusion only.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Jesus. Flynn also did not commit treason. If Flynn had commit treason, and Trump collusion, Treason would be bigger and they would go for that.

What evidence, not speculation, do you have that Treason was committed. I would bet you have nothing other than your hat made out of foil.

You know what, I've provided every bit of this discussion and every reply to exactly what you are saying here and you have not read ONE WORD of anything I've posted here.

If you had you would know that I ALREADY said that Flynn, according to US laws, is NOT guilty of anything for being a General who is unofficially meeting with a known Russian spy.

I don't get how that is even possible and it wouldn't be if he was English but in the US this is perfectly fine.

I literally wrote that no more than five replies earlier and you QUOTED that reply and yet didn't read it.

What the fuck is wrong with your brain, kid?

 

[Younigue]

Again, Treason has a very specific definition in the US and as of right now it does not appear to be Treason, just collusion.

For it to be Treason it would need to fit this...

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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."

Flynn did not try to levy war, and did not give aid or comfort to a US enemy. The only thing close is the 2nd part, but that would require the US to declare Russia an enemy which would be huge and will not happen. At best it looks to be collusion only.

Trump and Flynn were/are both willing to sell the Country to Russia. Treasonous pricks. Them and many others. They won't go down for that but the future will CliffsNotes that shit.

 

[emperus]

Collusion, which is serious. Trump and his people worked with foreign agents to gather information on Hillary. Working with Russia is a big deal, but the goal was not to start war and was not aiding an enemy thus not Treason. Treason is always a crime, Collusion is not always a crime. Both can and will likely get you impeached though.

That was a rhetorical quesiton becasue I don't think anypne (maybe Mueller) knows the full answer. And by the definition ' levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid ", one could make an argument that by their collusion they did in fact commit treason. One could argue Russia is our geopolitical enemy who attacked our country (hacking a candidate and trying to hack our elections) and by helping them do so, elect the person they wanted and dodge sanctions would be considered "adhering to them and giving them aid".

 

[hal2kilo]

Again, Treason has a very specific definition in the US and as of right now it does not appear to be Treason, just collusion.

For it to be Treason it would need to fit this...

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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."

Flynn did not try to levy war, and did not give aid or comfort to a US enemy. The only thing close is the 2nd part, but that would require the US to declare Russia an enemy which would be huge and will not happen. At best it looks to be collusion only.

So removing sanctions is not giving aid and comfort to our enemy Russia?

 

[dawp]

looks like Flynn has agreed to assist with the prosecution of another person.

http://start.att.net/news/read/arti...s_michael_flynn_agreed_to_provide_substan-tca

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Well this went off the rails fast. All this treason stuff suddenly. At the end of the day it's a very narrow definition. There's a reason it's only been charged a handful of times in the countries history. I'm somewhat amazed how it gets tossed around so much given how extremely unlikely that almost any circumstance falls under the definition of treason.

This is a good primer on how it is often confused.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...cee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.a53d325142da

 

[soundforbjt]

So removing sanctions is not giving aid and comfort to our enemy Russia?

This.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

looks like Flynn has agreed to assist with the prosecution of another person.

http://start.att.net/news/read/arti...s_michael_flynn_agreed_to_provide_substan-tca

I'm looking at you, Jared.

 

[soundforbjt]

I'm looking at you, Jared.

NBC is now reporting that Jared is mentioned in the Flynn guilty plea.

 

[J.Wilkins]

So removing sanctions is not giving aid and comfort to our enemy Russia?

That's not even the worst part of it, sanctions were proposed and voted through both houses and then signed into law by Trump but they have not been enacted. In fact, trade in the areas those sanctions would have limited is up by over 50% in part by Trumps NAFTA dealings.

It seems that everything he does is done to give benefits to Russia in one way or another.

 

[hal2kilo]

I'm looking at you, Jared.

Yea, I'm getting that vibe to, is that he saving his vitriol for Jared.

 

[realibrad]

That was a rhetorical quesiton becasue I don't think anypne (maybe Mueller) knows the full answer. And by the definition ' levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid ", one could make an argument that by their collusion they did in fact commit treason. One could argue Russia is our geopolitical enemy who attacked our country (hacking a candidate and trying to hack our elections) and by helping them do so, elect the person they wanted and dodge sanctions would be considered "adhering to them and giving them aid".

No, because the US would have to formally declare Russia an enemy of the US which it has not done. They can also not do it now and then say it would be treason as his acts were not illegal at the time. Its collusion and he lied about it which is what they got him on. But, it is incorrect to say that Russia is currently an enemy as that requires a formal declaration and that has not happened.

 

[Fenixgoon]

looks like Flynn has agreed to assist with the prosecution of another person.

http://start.att.net/news/read/arti...s_michael_flynn_agreed_to_provide_substan-tca

I'm looking at you, Jared.

NBC is now reporting that Jared is mentioned in the Flynn guilty plea.

what's the over/under on trump selling out his own children, including in-laws?

 

[realibrad]

So removing sanctions is not giving aid and comfort to our enemy Russia?

It could be considered that, but it would also require Russia to have been formally declared an enemy of the US. We have not declared any such thing and thus Russia cannot be considered an enemy. That is very explicit part of treason for this that has not been met.

 

[woolfe9998]

Uh, depending on your definition of 'enemy' and 'aid', yes, you most certainly can work out that treason is exactly what Trump has been involved in. If he promised aid to Russia in the form of .. well, anything the position of Presidency might permit him, and if you consider Russia an enemy of the US (I'd say meddling in an election would classify them as such), that's pretty much verbatim Treason..

"Enemy" means a country with whom we are at war. Our legal precedent for that goes back to the early 19th century.