Our Constitutional Republic is in danger due to this man. Trump is drawing closer and closer to invalidating our Founding Father’s experiment in self-government. He violated his oath of office and no one who can do anything about it in Congress or on his Cabinet is holding him accountable.
Trump sided with Vladimir Putin against all of our intelligence gathering agencies filled with men and women who quietly defend this nation against foreign intrusion. Men and women who just want a president that has their back...not stabs them in it.
Trump does nothing to preserve, protect and defend the United States or the people who serve it.
That is not incompetence.
That is not ignorance.
THAT IS TREASON.
DON'T SUPPORT TRAITORS - BECAUSE THOSE WHO SUPPORT TRAITORS ARE THEMSELVES TRAITORS.
16 comments:
Dad, I've read a number of your posts and find myself troubled and puzzled about where you're coming from with your anger towards President Trump and his supporters, which yes includes me. Puzzled because for as long as I've known you you've been a man deeply devoted to libertarian principles, including a very deep seated suspicion of the federal bureaucracy and the un-elected officials which inhabit it. A dislike of state power used against the American citizens, and a belief that unaccountable power corrupts inevitably.
Which is why I find your sudden support of those self-same unelected bureacrats rather odd, these are the sample people and organizations that have since the time of JFK if not before, been involved in getting the US embroiled in endless interventions, unvoted for and unpopular wars, drug running conspiracies, to say nothing of the now common knowledge thanks to Edward Snowden and Wikileaks that the American civilian population is being unlawfully spied upon by agencies whose mandate expressly forbids them from acting domestically. Which is to say, while I'm sure the alphabet soup of intelligence agencies in the U.S. do some good things on behalf of American citizens, the idea of them being selfless advocates for Constitutional Republicanism pretty laughable. I find attacks on them, based on their past and present behavior, to be perfectly reasonable. I think you'd agree attempting the alter a democratically held election are the least of the CIA's many sins over the years. "Stabbing them in the back" would suggest, collectively, an act of martyrdom from American intelligence agencies which I don't think could ever be taken seriously.
Cont..
Be that as it may, coming from a position of someone that wants minimal government intervention in my life and every other Citizen's and peace internationally unless under dire circumstances...why would I dislike Trump even assuming my opinion of him was a total blank slate since the day before he took the oath of office? Put aside the tabloid innuendo, put aside his tweets, put aside doomsday prophecies. What's happened in the past year and a half? We were assured it would be WW3, another Great Depression, that we would be a vassal state of Russia, and women and gays would be stripped of their civil rights. Has anything *remotely* like that happened? Can you honestly say your life is worse off beyond abstract stress because of his actions?
I guess this is the root of what puzzles me about your beliefs about Trump and well...me I guess, you say we have such horrible intents, yet what has materialized to support those beliefs? He's done, more or less, exactly what he said he would as a political candidate, which as someone who was as cynical about US politics as I recall you are, was a pleasant surprise to me for all that I voted for him. I'm used to politicians only saying what they think they need to to get votes. I actually have less apprehension about the future than I have since 9/11, no joke, which is 180 degrees from how you seem to feel, I guess I just can't quite figure out how we can see the same world and get two opposite conclusions. I don't feel like I need to fear for my child's future or my family's, there's no wars involving America going on, We're both making steady returns on our retirement funds. Would you and mom, Allison, and I made the major life changes we did unless we at felt comfortable about our prospects at least in the medium term?
cont..
As to the rest of the it, you seem to be very convinced the President is beholden to Russia, that President Putin rules him some how. To which I'd ask how that was reflected in any real way in his actions. The US revoking of the Iranian nuclear agreement and the Paris Treaty were absolutely at odds with the interests of Russia's government. For that matter if Trump is Putin's puppet...why would Trump be so adamant that NATO member states increase their defense spending commitments? That would make as much sense as the during the height of the cold war the Communist Party Central Committee accusing Nikita Khrushchev of being a Capitalist stooge for demanding the Warsaw Pact members all match Moscow's defense budget per GDP. That Putin preferred Trump to Clinton thanks to Clinton's long and well known history, and that Trump doesn't feel any particular dislike toward Vladimir Putin and is willing to work with him I'd happily agree, but why is that a bad thing?
Also, I'd just like to add this, coming from a lifelong agnostic, Evangelical Christian support of Trump makes complete rational sense even if you think their beliefs are completely irrational. He made no bones he'd wouldn't use state power to compel anyone to violate their religious beliefs. He hasn't violated that promise. From their POV, what would 20 failed marriages, adulteries, or even snorting blow on live television compare to not having state power used to compulse you to do something you felt was wrong? Again, I'm not and never have been a spiritual person, but just from pure pragmatism their position on him is understandable.
I know that was long winded, but I've been considering what you've said and tried to make my case as best I can, I felt like I should, I've discussed politics with you since I was a little kid and we took long walks together talking for hours Dad. I'm just wondering how we ended up on such polar opposites from coming from such a similar starting place. I've always considered myself fairly libertarian in my sympathies, and our talks shaped a lot of my opinions as I grew up and later into life. I'd just like to know what led you to yours.
Love,
Matt
I have had issues with many of our chief executives…mainly for waging illegal covert wars, encouraging torture and terrorism, and authorizing drone strikes that kill thousands of foreign civilians who are simply in the wrong place. But those presidents did not turn on the entire American covert services when they did those things. They reprimanded them, in some cases the head of the agency was removed, but they still stood up for them. No president has ever sided against all of them. Ever.
As you wrote above “While I'm sure the alphabet soup of intelligence agencies in the U.S. do some good things on behalf of American citizens, the idea of them being selfless advocates for Constitutional Republicanism pretty laughable. I find attacks on them, based on their past and present behavior, to be perfectly reasonable.”
Yes, they need to be held accountable. There need to be checks and balances on those agencies. (I wrote a whole blog in the summer of 2016 criticizing the CIA…and they earned it.) But when all 17 agencies come to the same conclusion, that Russia DID meddle in the election, and that meddling did lead to Trump becoming president, and then Trump goes to Helsinki and sides WITH PUTIN AGAINST ALL THE AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, That appears to be treason, pure and simple!
His oath calls for him to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. How is turning on his own intelligence agents protecting and defending them?
Then he comes back to the U.S. and reads a prepared statement that changed one word…would to wouldn’t…but doesn’t retract anything else he said in defence of Putin and wraps it up by adding the caveat afterwards that “it could have been other people too. A lot of people out there” yet offers not one scintilla of evidence that it was anyone OTHER than Russia, He is just lying to us.
To simplify it further, Trump says:
MEDIA: LYING.
MUELLER: LYING
COMEY: LYING
MCCABE: LYING
STORMY DANIELS: LYING
KAREN MCDOUGAL: LYING
MOTHER OF SLAIN U.S. SOLDIER: LYING
CLINTON: LYING
OBAMA: LYING
JUDGES: LYING
COHEN: LYING
PUTIN: “I HAVE PRESIDENT PUTIN. HE JUST SAID IT'S NOT RUSSIA. I WILL SAY THIS: I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY IT WOULD BE." TRANSLATION: THE HELL WITH WHAT MY INTELLIGENCE PEOPLE TELL ME. THEY’RE LYING. THIS MAN’S TELLING THE TRUTH.
Putin is not our friend. Siding with him will not make him our friend. Putin admitted on that stage in Helsinki with wanting Trump to win. No one should be angrier than Trump about receiving help from Putin to win the election…help that Trump claims he neither wanted nor needed. Because of this Russian interference, Trump’s legitimacy is now in question. An innocent man would be livid and trying to clear his name, not defending the foreign dictator whose interference help get him into office.
Dad
Dad,that 17 unaccountable and mostly opaque intelligence agencies which have had a spotty record, at best, of serving American Civil interest, and whom have time and again been shown to get involved in domestic politics all line up in exactly the same way doesn't make me inclined to agree with them but suspect them. I'd have felt the same way if they did it to Bush or Obama, much as I feel they both ended up being poor Presidents. That I have yet to hear from anyone in a position of authority to speak about the case ever define in explicit and concrete terms what they are accusing Russia or President Trump of doing to alter the results of the 2016 election after nearly 2 years of intense scrutiny suggests to me there is little if any truth to it.
So far Mueller has come up with a grand total of some Russian citizens that made Facebook political advertisements and a money laundering scheme from before Obama took office between a Ukrainian businessman and a guy that was on Trumps staff for what, like 5 months? If they had something more substantial don't you think it would have come out? All I ever hear is innuendo, which given the severity of the crimes being insinuated against Trump is all but an admission that no evidence exists to my mind.
As to the rest of that list, the newsmedia, career politicians, and a hooker trying to blackmail him are willing to lie about him to meet their ends. Why is that a ridiculous position to take? They lie to the American public on all other consequential topics when it suits their purposes.
Finally as to Putin and Russia, I'm honestly at a loss why they're suddenly boogeymen. Competitors with us sure, but I see no real reason to think either are explicitly enemies either. If anything I find Putins motivations transparent and easy to comprehend as he's written plenty of editorials about his viewpoint, several of which I've read. He laments the diminishment of Russia as a Great Power since the fall of the USSR and the days of the Russian Empire and believes NATO as a trade bloc took advantage of the Russian federation shortly after the fall of Communism. Neither of which is really shocking, coming from a Russian Nationalist. Which is exactly how I interpret his motivations, attempting to restore Russians regional influence. He's accused of being a Tyrant but given the history of Russia and the fact that multiple independent foreign polls suggest he enjoys a level of public satisfaction most western politicians would envy, I'd argue he rules fairly consistently with how most Russian citizens wish him to.
Which brings the accusations that Putin wanted Trump to win... He probably did.
There were only two choices last election given that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein had even less of a snowballs chance in Hell than most elections. Clinton had gone on record contemplating the possibility of military action after Russia annexed the Crimea, and during her time as Secretary of State she oversaw an aggressive foreign policy in the middle east that resulted in a bunch of bad but fairly benign secular dictators replaced by chaos and ISIS invasions into nations allied with Russia. In contrast Trump had while campaigning reflected the desire of most of his base that the US cease getting involved overseas in anything but direct national interest.
If you were Putin, who would you prefer dealing with? That's not nefarious or a conspiracy but common sense given his position.
If you think my reasoning is wrong on this dad let me know where you see it but that's my interpretation of things from the past 2+ years.
-Matt
To boil it all down...as you wrote "Which brings the accusations that Putin wanted Trump to win... He probably did."
Yes, he admitted he did. In mid-December, Trump's own National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster was quoted as saying that Russia was using “sophisticated campaigns of subversion and disinformation and propaganda" to sway US elections. Trump tweeted him out of office soon afterwards. Why would McMaster just make that up if he hadn't read intelligence reports stating that's what the Russians were up to?
So then we refer to United States Federal Election Law 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and 11 CFR 110.20. which states "In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from: Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States.
Putin's help would fall under the category "thing of value" as it got Trump into the White House. That violates U.S. Election laws. Trump was unlawfully elected to the presidency.
Dad that logic seems somewhat backwards to me, that Russia takes an interest in our elections and uses propaganda where it can I have no doubt of. However we do the same to them, and indeed it's been found we directly interfere with elections in erstwhile allies like Germany.
McMaster claimed their were sophisticated campaigns of subversion and disinformation being carried out by Russia. For the sake of argument, given such a vague accusation, let's take the most concrete and extreme version of that statement to be that Russian Nationals, through orders of the FSB and with the authorization of Vladimir Putin had carried out covert Pro-Trump propaganda online. Taking that as a given that doesn't tell me much beyond the Kremlin would nominally prefer dealing with Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton.
However there's a few holes in going from that argument to saying Trump committed treason and was elected unlawfully. First, a question I see Nobody asking is was this Propaganda campaign done entirely online or was there a real world component on American soil? If it's just the former and the extent of this "disinformation campaign" was done on social media:
Was there anything more criminal to it than if an American working at The DOD were to have posed as a French citizen online and had post inflammatory remarks on Facebook and Twitter against Emmanuel Macrons opponents in an attempt to sway public opinion in France in his favor during the French National elections?
Given that Macron subsequently won that election, and that inflammatory remarks from an individual working in the US government could be argued to conceivably have changed enough votes to get him into office, would you say that Macron's victory should be declared invalid?
Because that seems to be the line of reasoning you're proposing. Its a sort of guilt by association that demands that because one party *potentially* benefitted from the unsolicited actions of someone else they are somehow guilty of that person's wrongdoing.
Which leads back to this, if there any verifiable evidence that Trump solicited or ordered others to solicit a foreign government to intervene domestically then you'd be absolutely right. But as I see it given all the leaks, depositions, and editorials the closest thing anyone can provide evidence for is that Russian citizen may have operated a coordinated series of social media posts at the probably behest of Russias foreign office or FSB while staying undeclared on an expired Visa.
Or to put it more simply, Russian trolls posing as Americans said mean things about Hillary and nice things about Trump on FB, Twitter, and Reddit. And that's the best 17 intelligence agencies have been able to level against Trump after 2 years of digging. If they have something more substantial than that I'd have to believe we'd heard about it.
Finally, Trump once in office has mostly carried out in office exactly what he said he'd do on live television to the American public, and if he somehow is secretly ruled by Russia I have to ask what kind of long game Russia is playing at having their supposed puppet undercutting their gas exports to Europe, bolstering the US defense budget, encourage an expansion of NATO defense spending, and pulling out of two major treaties that heavily favored Russia internationally. Assuming you believed Donald Trump gained office from the direct and knowing assistance of President Putin... Does any of that mesh?
-Matt
If Putin’s intent (and I believe it was) is to cause discord and division within the U.S. and our allies, then yes, it does mesh.
The fact that Robert Mueller isn’t revealing his hand doesn’t mean he doesn’t have anything. Unlike the White House, team Mueller doesn’t seem to leak much.
As you correctly wrote above “Which leads back to this, if there any verifiable evidence that Trump solicited or ordered others to solicit a foreign government to intervene domestically then you'd be absolutely right.”
Trump June 27, 2016: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing; I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
As it turns out, that very same day, the Russians made their first effort to break into the servers used by Clinton, according to a sweeping 29-page indictment unsealed by Robert Mueller’s special counsel’s office that charged the 12 Russian military agents with election hacking. Coincidence?
Trump didn’t ask the Chinese, North Koreans, or Iranians. He asked the Russians.
You mentioned that “Russian citizens may have operated a coordinated series of social media posts at the probable behest of Russia’s foreign office…” The trial of Maria Butina will show she, along with several others, did far more than just mount a social media campaign. She actively worked as a Russian agent within U.S. borders to help Trump win.
Robert Mueller has indicted 12 named Russian GRU agents, 3 Russian companies, and 19 additional Americans. He’s gotten 4 guilty pleas and many have flipped and are now cooperating with his investigation.
Had Russia helped Hillary, Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, I’d be writing about them right now. We’ve gotten far off the track of my initial concern regarding Trump. He sided with a foreign dictator in front of the whole world against his own intelligence people, a violation of his oath to “preserve, protect and defend” American interests. Why should any American currently serving under him ever trust him again?
I want to know what Trump and Putin talked about in that 2+ hour meeting in Helsinki. The American people are owed that much. National Intelligence Director Dan Coats has admitted that he STILL doesn't know what was discussed at that meeting. He's the head of one of our top intelligence bureaus and was appointed BY TRUMP! Why all the secrecy if Trump is being transparent, if he has nothing to hide, if there is no criminal conspiracy?
Honestly Dad, what is it you think think he's conspiring to do for Russia? He had a closed door meeting with the President of Russia, maybe he was tired of the hysterical circus act that is the American media, who knows. Sometimes I think he does half the things he does because they're so eyerollingly predictable in the outrage and he enjoys getting a rise out of them.
As I said, Trump's been trying to get the other members of NATO to increase their defense spending, as well, unlike Obama, he's been quite cordial to former Warsaw pact nations such as Poland and Hungary. Which isn't the behavior of someone doing the bidding of the Kremlin. In contrast the former Chancellor of Germany who's an official shill for Russia's state oil company Gazprom but not a sniff from anyone about that of any conflicting interests for Angela Merkel's country. After all this time, if there was substance to the accusation, shouldn't there be something to show for it?
And still, I'd like to understand how exactly Russia interfered in the Election, as all parties have dropped the accusation of any direct tampering of ballots or ballot readers, so far as I'm aware. Which leaves what exactly, misinformation? President Trump was live on television expounding on what he intended to do in office back in mid-2015. Unless you think Russian agents used mind control on all his voters that line of reasoning really doesn't add up. People voted for him for their own reasons, and they didn't need badly made Facebook posts to make their minds up for them. He ran on enforcing immigration law that had been on the books for decades that had been ignored since at least George HW Bush, withdrawing from multinational agreements that bypassed a vote by the US public, an end to the US as World Police, and a roll back of regulation and taxes. Nowhere in any of that is any consideration for how Vladimir Putin feels about those positions.
In the end though, this is all almost moot, because in reaction to Trump and those that voted for him, his opposition has decided that their best course of action isn't to become the party of JFK once more, or even of FDR, but of Che Guevera. Now i'm bombarded any time I try to read the news by people that supposedly want me to consider voting for them that I'm evil for existing, racist for not hating myself, guilty of blood sin, that I should be ashamed of having children, that we should destroy the monuments to our past because they offend the political sensibilities of a few with power in the present. Where does it end?
That's my alternative, which kind of proves the point of all of us that voted for him doesn't it? Since his election we've been bombarded with waves of hysteria that convince some that he's more guilty, and some that his alternative is infinitely worse. So if the Russians goal was to divide us politically I suppose I'd look at his opposition more than him, he's not the one fielding violent communists in major cities, and he wasn't the one that told Russia's then-President Medvedev that he'd have "more flexibility" in dealing with them after he was re-elected, nor was he the one that approved selling vast quantities of fissile Uranium from our reserves to Russia. Yet I'm supposed to abandon support for him because cadres of his enemies convene Kangaroo Courts of his political opponents seeking a crime to fit the man?
That's quite a tall hill to climb to convince anyone that voted for him that they were in error, if that is a goal at all.
- Matt.
When FDR met Stalin at Yalta, he didn’t meet for 2+ hours with no one but an interpreter and then not tell anyone what was discussed. FDR did not then side with the NKVD against U.S. personnel working to protect American interests.
When Reagan met with Gorbachev, they didn’t keep their meeting secret and not tell even their aides or intelligence people what transpired. Reagan also did not stab his own intelligence people in the back and side with Gorbachev then or at any time in the future.
When George W. Bush met with Putin, they released joint statements afterwards that clearly spelled out where they saw eye to eye and where they had differences. At no point did Bush then say “I believe him over my own people,” insinuating they were lying to him and only Putin told him the truth.
Trump did 180 degrees from that. He held a secret meeting with a foreign dictator that he hasn’t even informed his own Defense Department people, his own intelligence Director, even his own Secretary of State what was discussed. We’re only finding out bits and pieces based on what TASS or the Russian military is releasing. This has never happened in American history. Then he stands on stage and tells the world Putin is telling the truth. His own intelligence people are not.
When he did that, he violated his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the interests of the United States and all those who serve it. On that basis, no one serving in our military, or any U.S. government function anywhere around the world can ever trust him again. He needs to be removed from office.
Actually I do recall George W Bush making a rather bizarre comment about looking in Putins eyes and getting a good sense of his soul after the two had a bilateral summit in Slovenia. Spoken in a positive sense I might add. And again, President Obama was caught when he was thought not being recorded as telling President Medvedev (whom was Putins sock puppet while Vladimir Putin was PM everyone agreed, even Medvedev) that he "would have more flexibility to work with him after he no longer faced a re-election" what is that but a bald faced statement of contempt against the American people? No calls for his resignation over that one all the same.
And the President taking a position contra the press statements of US intelligence services isn't violating his oath of office. Even if you believe it was, he would have to be impeached by Congress. Which again would require proof that of laws being violated, not just conjecture based on suspicion. All so you could have President Mike Pence. Who I suspect you'd like less than Trump. But what's the alternative, a coup d'etat?
And for me, there presently are no alternatives to Trump even if I believed he had committed an impeachable offense. There appears nobody sane in his opponents save a few blue dog Democrats from conservative states that will likely lose their seats this November anyhow. Trumps base has and will continue to support him if only because the alternative is a bunch of people that have decided that The People's Democratic Republic has a nice ring to it.
-Matt
What Trump did falls under the category of Aiding and Abetting. From the website www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/904
which covers 10 U.S. Code § 904 - Article 104. Aiding the enemy | US Law | LII / Legal - it says: 104. Aiding the enemy. Without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
Since Trump is the Commander-in-Chief of all military forces, it applies to him. He committed treason.
There is no getting around that, and there is no excuse. He cannot pardon himself from this. If Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders…or any other person had done that, my response would be the same. They committed treason. They must be removed from office.
I don't like the thought of President Pence either, but for the sake of our Constitutional Republic, it must be done. If Trump is allowed to get away with treason, what ISN'T he allowed to get away with?
"Aiding the enemy. Without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly"
In order to be an Enemy, as defined by that article, we would have to have a Declaration of War from congress if I recall correctly. One of many reasons why there have been so very few civil prosecutions for Treason since Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Congress hasn't formally declared war since 1942, ever since there have just been bills authorizing the use of military force and the requisition of funding associated.
Russia isn't an enemy, there are certainly restrictions on technology and data export controls but that's true of China Brazil and a host of others as well. You can't be charged with Aiding an abetting a nation that has no formal hostilities with the US.
So, from a legal standpoint, I can't see how that would apply.
-Matt
Since 2011, by The White House and the Pentagon’s own definitions, a cyber-attack is to be considered "An act of war."
Cyber-warfare is an act of war committed on computer- or network-based systems involving politically motivated attacks by a nation-state on another nation-state. In these attacks, nation-state actors attempt to disrupt the activities of organizations or nation-states, especially for strategic or military purposes and cyber-espionage.
Again, it is an act of war.
In January 2017, the intelligence community went further, declassifying a report by the CIA, NSA, FBI, and director of national intelligence called, “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections.” They showed the president-elect that Putin was waging cyber-warfare against America. He was informed of it again by Rod Rosenstein just before the Helsinki summit, but Trump ignored ALL of his intelligence advisers as they sound the alarm about continued Russian interference over and over again.
When Trump ignores all of his top-level security and military people, people he put at the helm of many of those agencies; Dan Coats, Chris Wray, Mike Pompeo, Gen. Joseph Dunford, Gen. Jim Mattis, and sides with Putin about a cyber attack on the U.S. election to help him …and even HE has agreed they did it, he just adds his own interpretation(without any proof) that it didn’t influence the election in HIS favor…he has committed treason. He is aiding a foreign government against his own. That is a direct violation of his oath the preserve, protect and defend this country, its institutions, and the people who serve it.
As I wrote previously, why would anyone in uniform, or anyone involved in any U.S. government function around the world ever trust him again?
What Trump did is indefensible. Period!
The eerie part that you wrote above was “there presently are no alternatives to Trump even if I believed he had committed an impeachable offense. There appears nobody sane in his opponents save a few blue dog Democrats from conservative states...”
There are no alternatives to Trump? That makes the United States sound like a third-world dictatorship, a North Korean version of America. Something akin to Trump’s People’s Democratic Republic.
Even if he committed an impeachable offense we must keep him in office? If Trump is allowed to get away with a treasonous offense, what is he NOT allowed to get away with?
Post a Comment