Posted by | December 18, 2016 06:33 | Filed under: Opinion Politics

John Shattuck, a former assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, lays it out in the Boston Globe. Trump’s denigration of our intelligence community is a serious breach, reasons Shattuck

There are several possible explanations for Trump’s position. They are not mutually exclusive. First, he may be trying to shore up his political standing before the Electoral College vote on Monday. Second, he may be attempting to undermine the credibility of US intelligence agencies in advance of his taking office so that he can intimidate them and have a freer hand in reshaping the intelligence product to suit his objectives. Third, he may be testing his ability to go over the heads of intelligence professionals and congressional critics and persuade the American public to follow his version of the truth about national security threats. And finally, he may be seeking to cover up evidence of involvement or prior knowledge by members of his campaign team or himself in the Russian cyberattack.

In each case the president-elect is inviting an interpretation that his behavior is treasonous. The federal crime of treason is committed by a person “owing allegiance to the United States who . . . adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort,” and misprision of treason is committed by a person “having knowledge of the commission of any treason [who] conceals and does not disclose” the crime. By denigrating or seeking to prevent an investigation of the Russian cyberattack Trump is giving aid or comfort to an enemy of the United States, a crime that is enhanced if the fourth explanation applies — that he is in fact seeking to cover up his staff’s or his own involvement in or prior knowledge of the attack.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

  • whatthe46

    well, duh?

  • mea_mark

    ” The federal crime of treason is committed by a person “owing allegiance to the United States who . . . adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort,” ” — Then wouldn’t that mean that if tRump is guilty of treason and the electors know it making him president, are guilty of treason also?

    • Glen

      No, because they’re just electing, and they can’t be 100% certain it’s treason unless it’s found by courts (in which case, there will be no vote for Trump).

      If they suspect him to be a traitor, and vote for him anyway, then they’re certainly deplorable. But not treasonous, themselves – especially if they’re electors for a state that binds their electors legally.

      • mea_mark

        I bet that ‘100% certain’ could be argued in court. The state binding laws are most likely unconstitutional, they just haven’t ever been challenged in court and are there to scare or coerce the electors to not do their constitutional duty of electing a competent president.

        • Glen

          The state binding laws might be unconstitutional, but until determined to be so, you can’t consider those who obey those laws to be traitors. They’re not constitutional scholars, they’re just people who have been told they have to vote for [person] and that they’ll be punished if they don’t.

          In short, they’d be considered victims of coercion, not perpetrators of treason.

          And they almost certainly can’t possibly be 100% certain (excuse the really tortured sentence, there). They can be certain beyond reasonable doubt, but that’s not the same thing as 100% certain.

          • mea_mark

            Coercion of voters is also illegal. Maybe we could then go after the legislators that created these laws and arrest them.

            • Glen

              Agreed – but the point is, the electors aren’t guilty in such a situation, and can’t be called treasonous.

              • mea_mark

                I bet is might stick in civil court though, where the rules aren’t as strict. Sue them for damages that the tRump brings upon the nation. It’s after the fact but should make something like this happening again in the future less likely.

                • Glen

                  Pretty sure the same argument applies there – these people were coerced into their actions, and thus you can’t really hold them responsible for the results – instead, you hold the one doing the coercion responsible.

                  To do otherwise would be like suing a bank clerk for handing over your money to a thief while a gun was pointed at their head, rather than going after the thief.

                  And let’s be honest, your country is WAY too litigation-happy as it is. If you want to stop this from happening again, fix your laws. Don’t sue the people who are just following the law of the land as it was at the time.

                  • mea_mark

                    The constitution is clear, it is the law of the land. The electors have responsibility to elect someone fit to be president. I hope they follow that law.

                    • Glen

                      As I said, these people aren’t constitutional scholars. What they know is that their state laws apply punishments if they don’t vote according to the results of the election in their state. If those laws are found to be unconstitutional (and as you have, yourself, said, it hasn’t been tested, yet), then sue the pants off those who put those laws in place.

                      Let me put it another way – nearly 63 million people voted for Trump. Would you lock all of them up? After all, they don’t get the benefit of being able to say they were required by law to vote as they did. It’s just not reasonable to do so, in a democracy.

                      And if that agreement by states to vote according to national popular vote were to succeed, then those states would have to bind their electors to the result, too.

                      Your current Electoral College system practically requires such laws. It’s really absurd to lay the blame for a failure of the system at the feet of people who were just obeying what they believe are constitutional laws.

            • trees

              Maybe you could go after all the Hollywood actors who are coercing them to change their votes…

              And everyone else who is trying to coerce them to vote for someone other than the one their state certified as the election winner…

      • Budda

        “If the electors know it (Trumps treasonists acts)”…I would conclude they were in collusion with said treason.

        • Glen

          Treason isn’t transitive. It’s not enough that they know he has committed treason and that they knew it when voting. Collusion implies much more than simply not considering “he’s committed treason” to be an important negative factor.

          Being a traitor does not necessarily mean being an enemy. Voting for Trump would classify only as giving aid and comfort to a traitor.

          • mea_mark

            ” giving aid and comfort to a traitor. ” — That is treason.

            • Glen

              No, as I said, a traitor doesn’t inherently fall under the category of an enemy of the state. Also, a vote does not inherently represent aid and comfort.

              It’s important not to be lax with the terminology of these things. Otherwise, Trump could start jailing people for being friendly to Muslims, or other such nonsense (and I do believe he’d do it, too…)

              • allison1050

                Where did you attend to study law.

                • Glen

                  I didn’t attend law school, but I’m a scientist, skilled in the process of real research and finding trustworthy sources (as opposed to pseudoscientific “research” done by “skeptics” who are actually denialists, or by conspiracy theorists).

                  For example, in extensive checking, I noted repeated mention of the point that treason is defined in your constitution very specifically in order to prevent treason being applied to anything that would otherwise fall under freedom of speech.

                  Voting is considered part of freedom of speech in the US. Therefore, the right to vote as you wish in an election is protected, and cannot be considered treason.

                  As for “enemy of the state” or equivalent, I see repeated use of the phrase “hostilities”. Traitors who have committed “aiding and abetting” aren’t necessarily participating in hostilities, and Trump certainly hasn’t participated in hostilities that we know of (which would include directly funding the Russian military in its plans to attack America, for example). So Trump would only become an enemy of the state if he was knowingly funding war efforts against America, or otherwise engaging in war against America.

                  Aiding and abetting gets him to “traitor” level, but not to “enemy” level.

                  • allison1050

                    Research Shattuck’s educational background and when you’re able to match his credentials then I’ll take you more seriously Glen. Since you want to believe that you know more about the subject than Shattuck then may I suggest that you let him know that he’s wrong?

                    Thanks

                    • Glen

                      I’m not challenging what Shattuck said. I agree 100% with him, and certainly defer to his expertise. I was challenging what mea_mark said, that those Electors who vote for Trump are also guilty of treason. Trump aided and abetted an “enemy”. Those electors, at worst, aided and abetted a traitor – a lesser transgression, as far as I can tell.

                  • Budda

                    “your Constitution”…it isn’t yours? Are you a Russian troll?

                    • Glen

                      I’m Australian. I’ve established that quite a few times.

                  • trees

                    Excellent post Glen, it will not make you very many friends here, but it was well thought out and concise. I think we could make the statement that, “Enemy of the state and acts of warfare, or giving support and aid to those who are, or plan to, engage in acts of warfare against the state”

                    • Glen

                      You probably don’t want to be thanking me, since I strongly agree that Trump is an atrocious man who probably should be charged with treason.

                    • trees

                      Charged with treason for doing what, exactly?

              • whatthe46

                tRump want to take citizenship away from people excising their 1stA rights. pUtin has those to oppose him or critique him murdered, Pussy Riot was lucky enough to have only been imprisoned for 2 years. and he’s asked russia to hack into his opponents email, pUtin has them murdered. tRump is a traitor.

          • Budda

            Transitive? More like aiding and abetting.

            • Glen

              You should probably look up the meaning of the word “transitive”.

              • Budda

                You’re deflecting and splitting hairs.

                • Glen

                  No, I’m really not. I said treason isn’t transitive – that is, aiding and abetting someone who aids and abets the enemy isn’t the same as aiding and abetting the enemy. It’s not a transitive connection.

                  I’d already extensively addressed real challenges to my statements. Your vapid “Transitive? More like aiding and abetting” added nothing to the conversation, and thus I didn’t deflect, I dismissed your comment as vapid.

                  • Budda

                    Your” verbosity” is telling. In our country the law says; if your friend asks for a ride to the store, then robs it, murders the owner, you, the driver, are also charged with murder. Same deal here matey.

                    • Glen

                      Perhaps in your part of America, actually explaining things and using (and understanding) words is a foreign concept, but your failure to actually address my point is what’s telling.

                      And actually, the person who provides the transportation to the store would be charged with being an accessory to murder, not with murder. And if they weren’t told what the thief and murderer was going to do, it would be even less than that.

                      If your country actually says that a person who unknowingly provides transport to someone who then steals and murders is guilty of theft and murder, then America is more screwed up than I though.

                    • Budda

                      You appear to like arguing. You’re off on tangents and back again from around the corner.

                      Knowingly supporting an apparent individual with treasonist connections does, in fact, make you complicit.

                    • Glen

                      You’re the one who keeps going on tangents, like talking about giving a lift to a guy who then robs and murders (with a completely false claim that you haven’t admitted to being wrong about – you’ve just ignored the fact that you’ve been contradicted… gee, who does that sound like?).

                      “Complicit” is not the same thing as “guilty of treason”, nor is it the same thing as “collusion”. To be collusion, they would have to be operating on the instructions of Trump (or be working directly with him), rather than simply voting for him. For the elector to have guilt, Trump would have to be designated an enemy of the state (which is not automatic just because he’s a traitor).

                    • Budda

                      It boils down to this: if I’m on the jury I’ll find them guilty.

        • trees

          Ohh….

          Guilty of mind crimes

          wow…

          • Budda

            ??

    • trees

      This is in reference to war. An enemy of war…..

      A declared enemy of war.

      Otherwise “treason” becomes an extremely broad sweeping generalization that clouds the dealings any government official has with a foreign nation…..

      Here let me look it up for you………

      18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason

      Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
      US Code
      Notes
      prev | next
      Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
      (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

      • Red Mann

        levies war against them or adheres to their enemies

        • trees

          You clearly don’t understand how the sentence is structured. It means to engage in warfare against your country or to give aid and comfort to those who do…

          • Red Mann

            Nope, that’s not what it says.

            • trees

              Uh… that’s exactly what it says….

              • Hirightnow

                Define “war”, if you would.
                If country A lobs missiles at country B, that’s war, without a doubt; missiles would subvert B’s autonamy
                What is your opinion if A does all that it can WITHOUT those missiles to subvert B? Is that not war as well?

                • trees

                  war
                  wôr/Submit
                  noun
                  1.
                  a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
                  “Japan declared war on Germany”
                  synonyms: conflict, warfare, combat, fighting, (military) action, bloodshed, struggle; More
                  verb
                  1.
                  engage in a war.
                  “small states warred against each other”
                  synonyms: fight (against), battle (against), combat (against), wage war against, take up arms against; feud with, quarrel with, struggle with/against, contend with, wrangle with, cross swords with; attack, engage (against), take on, skirmish with
                  “rival empires warred against each other”

                  • Hirightnow

                    War=conflict between opposing parties.

                    • trees

                      Armed and violent conflict, where the point of the conflict is to kill your enemies, breaking their will, causing them to submit and give up.

                      Sorry, but your simple definition describes just an argument.

                    • Hirightnow

                      So, “war of wills” is just an incorrect usage of the word? “Trade war”? The so-called “War on Christmas”?

                    • trees

                      Not an incorrect usage of words, per se, but an incorrect usage in terms of the context of treason.

  • Suzanne McFly

    I read those two paragraphs and I am ready to submit my verdict, GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • fay9169

      Then, for one, you don’t believe in the rule of law…and two–you sound about as ignorant as John Shattuck–,who’s judging a private citizen as guilty, according to his own opinion, rather than wipirrying about actual elected officials….that’s not good. I thought ‘we’ were better than that!

      • Hirightnow

        Your point?

        • allison1050

          There is none.

      • oldfart

        Clearly the last 8 years has proven your last statement to be wrong…
        and ignorant.

      • fahvel

        I think you should be wipirrying about the process of the marbles frolicking in your skull.

        • fay9169

          I think you’re just plain dumb. And illiterate.

      • allison1050

        Are you trying to say that Shattuck has judged Trump as guilty? Really?

        • fay9169

          Yes.

          • allison1050

            I also asked that you point it out, why haven’t you?

      • Suzanne McFly

        Abhorrent

    • Hirightnow

      But,will we stand for it?

      • Suzanne McFly

        Will we stand for him to commit treason? I hope not, I know the republicans love to allow the chubby orange guy to do as he pleases but most of us voted for her and will not allow him to destroy our country.

        • Hirightnow

          I share your sympathy, but remember: “History is written by the winners”.

          • Suzanne McFly

            I know, I know

  • Willys41

    Does anyone really think a trial in the Senate is going to end in a 2/3 vote to convict?

    And if it does we get a right-wing “christian” extremist in the Oval Office who wants to replace the constitution with biblical law.

    • Hirightnow

      Personally, I’m of the mind that if a POTUS is found guilty of treason, then his/her entire cabinet should be sacked, right up to the VP.

      • Lyndia

        No, Pence, would be in charge.

        • Hirightnow

          Why would you put a person in charge who was chosen by a traitor?

    • ohpaleasegivemeabreak

      Drumpf will sign that hatefilled holier than everyone phony xtian legislation – don’t kid yourself – he’s a control freak just like every other right winger on the planet.

  • trees

    I think you people need to understand the context through which treason is defined. That context is warfare…

    Aiding and abetting a declared enemy during wartime. Working against your country as a spy, as an operative, supplying the “enemy” with state secrets….

    The cry here on Liberaland seems to be… “But…but..Trump encouraged our enemy Russia by saying Hillary’s emails should be released which is actually Trump working with Russia against our country and asking them to release state secrets..”

    Couple things,…
    1) We are not at war with Russia

    2) We have a friendly relationship, and I mean friendly in the context of maintaining an embassy and engaging them in a friendly way when dealing with them…

    Talking off the cuff about something like, “supposed personal emails”, and saying that, “IF they had them he felt they should be released” is hardly treason…

    You people look ridiculous for throwing around a charge you don’t understand.

    • wpadon

      Treason has nothing to do with the country being at war. The last time we have been officially was 75 years ago.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_convicted_of_treason

      • Hirightnow

        Wait…aren’t we at war with Christmas?

        • bpollen

          Christmas appears to be winning. My wallet is losing.

          • Hirightnow

            Have you considered Festivus?

            • Sy Colepath

              …for the rest of us.

            • bpollen

              When I consider it, I think of Seinfeld. Then I think “I never liked that show.” After that, I tend to forget Festivus.

      • trees

        Treason has nothing to do with the country being at war.

        ????

    • William

      Trump conspired with the Russians to hack the election https://youtu.be/gNa2B5zHfbQ

    • dewired4u

      What is laughable is you being so in love with trump that you are blind to his BS.

    • Red Mann

      We don’t need to be at war. It is reasonable to define Russia as our enemy.

      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.

      Being in the pocket of a hostile foreign power is tantamount to treason.
      You are laughable with your foolish pontifications.

      • arc99

        I have blocked our resident right wing troll. I see I am not missing anything as he is as usual wrong on the facts.

        We were not at war with the Soviet Union when Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted and executed.

        Article 3 Section 3 defines treason

        “”Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.””

        The definition is an OR statement, meaning either scenario qualifies as treason. There is no Constitutional requirement that the “enemies” be defined by a formal Constitutionally valid declaration of war.

        Only an idiot who cannot read plain English, thinks the Founders intended that no one could be tried or convicted of treason unless the country was at war with the enemy receiving aid and comfort.

        • Hirightnow

          Whilst I can’t blame you, I do urge you not to block another’s posts just because their opinions are different from yours: after all, one cannot fight an enemy one does not know.
          Also, trees is actually one of the more sensible posters (as opposed to “red eye robot” or “right thinking one”…unsure if they’re not one and the same), along with R.J.Carter.
          But do as you will

        • Robert M. Snyder

          You blocked trees for the mild-mannered things he wrote above?

          I guess this is now a “safe space” where dissenting opinions are not allowed. You’d better block me, too, before I start using offensive words like “ridiculous”, as trees did.

        • trees

          From Wikipedia, not to be confused with Wikileaks…

          Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were United States citizens who spied for the Soviet Union and were tried, convicted, and executed for conspiracy to commit espionage. They were instrumental in the transmission of information about top-secret military technology and prototypes of mechanisms related to the atomic bomb, which were of value to the Soviet nuclear weapons program.[1][2]

          Now, did Donald Trump come anywhere close to commiting an act like the one, (your example), cited above??

          And yes, the above example has to do with warfare….

          They were instrumental in the transmission of information about top-secret military technology and prototypes of mechanisms related to the atomic bomb, which were of value to the Soviet nuclear weapons program.

          And is within the context I was describing above….. In giving aid and comfort to a “Cold War” enemy.

    • ohpaleasegivemeabreak

      You want to whine and pretend that Treason can only be performed during war.

      You are wrong.

      But that is no shock.

      What is laughable is you.

      • Hirightnow

        Be polite…

    • bpollen

      THIS is how treason is defined: “the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.”

      Notice what’s missing that YOU claim is a necessary part of the definition? War.

      So, a couple of things:

      1. Irrelevant, because treason doesn’t require a war footing.
      2. Selling out to foreign interests is OK if they are allies? The Constitution seems to not buy your argument… “Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]” from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

      Somebody looks ridiculous, and deciduous. So deciduous it’s wooden.

      Frankly, Shattuck has immeasurably more credibility on the subject that your trollery doesn’t provide for you.

      • trees

        THIS is how treason is defined: “the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.”

        Notice what’s missing that YOU claim is a necessary part of the definition? War.

        Federal[edit]

        To avoid the abuses of the English law, treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III, section 3 reads as follows:
        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.
        The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

        • bpollen

          You notice the “or” in the quote from the Constitution? That word means that there is ANOTHER choice besides levying war. That’s called English. So, by your own quote, you list a SEPARATE choice besides levying war. And, as we have seen repeatedly, there need be no declaration of war for us to take unwelcome military action in foreign sovereign nations, with “enemy” being a pretty friggin’ amorphous concept. And an ever-evolving concept – today’s enemy might be your ally tomorrow.

          So, to sum up, the ignorance of which you speak is another one of your specious claims. Similarly, your accusations of lying (how ironic – point out how YOU lie and you falsely accuse ME of lying – remember what I said about projection?) Got more prevarications, falsehoods, deceptions, fictions, fibs, mendacity, fabrications?

          • trees

            Do you not understand the word only?

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

            It’s one sentence. The first half of the sentence defines the act of treason as one of warfare, and confines it to mean war/warfare only. The second half goes on to describe those, who? Those Americans who give aid and comfort to who? The practitioner’s of war/warfare against this country.

            • bpollen

              Yes… “only” this OR that. That’s an “only” with 2-2-2 choices!

              Your premise is faulty. The first clause says ONLY in levying war. But the second clause says OR in adhering, aiding, or comforting enemies. The first clause lays out ONE criterion, the second provides an ALTERNATIVE criterion. It does not say “adhering, aiding, and comforting IN A TIME OF WAR” It is NOT dependent solely on the first clause. Your INTERPRETATION says so, but the actual TEXT does not.

              The text doesn’t directly support your interpretation. Bet you thought The Cat in the Hat was REALLY about Thing 1 and Thing 2…

              “The practitioner’s of war/warfare against this country.”

              So… by your definition, all of our actions in say… Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq… are all conflicts without an ENEMY because we haven’t NOT declared war since Dec. 8, 1941. By your definition, I could adhere to, give aid and comfort to, the Koreans and Chinese in Korea, the VC in Vietnam, Saddam, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, et al without EVER being guilty of treason. Ergo, there could have been NO POSSIBLE TREASON since Sep. 2, 1945. By your definition. We have treated each and every one, and described each and every one, as the enemy. Yet, one cannot commit treason if say… you helped effect a massive terrorist attack against the US by ISIS. Or enable say… Russia to detonate a nuke in Central Park in NY, since we aren’t AT WAR with them.

    • Sy Colepath

      “friendly relationship” I would call it severely strained with the invasion of Ukraine and sticking their noses in the Syrian civil war.

      • trees

        Diplomacy requires civility and a willingness to communicate amicably. Without this, communication breaks down. That’s what was meant by…..

        2) We have a friendly relationship, and I mean friendly in the context of maintaining an embassy and engaging them in a friendly way when dealing with them…

        • Bunya

          Sure, we have a “friendly relationship” with Russia. Too bad they don’t have a “friendly relationship” with the US. Vladimir Putin is only interested in one thing and one thing only, and that is what’s best for Vladimir Putin.

  • trees

    She lost folks.

    You all look pretty stupid for not accepting the results of the election.

    You don’t have to like him, you are welcome to speak out against him, without being declared guilty of treason, but…..

    He is the duly elected president of the United States.

    • Jack E Raynbeau

      Not until he’s inaugurated. Right now Obama is the duly elected president. He has four weeks the get those guns.

      • Hirightnow

        I hope that leaves him enough time to implement Sharia law and get those FEMA camps running….

    • William

      Yeah, I’m just going to except a draft dodging racist who fact checks out to a 14 percent truth rate. (that means 86 percent of whatever comes out of his mouth is a lie) http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/, insults veterans, women, pows, won’t release his taxes, asked Russia to hack into our election process, brags about being a sex offender and feels up his daughter in public.
      Not happening. But you go right ahead, believe me, we understand. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f9db7c8ca57aa384d69a33d91bdbc44709a5d87f692f33ef525ce9da90a54af6.jpg

      • trees

        Yeah, I’m just going to except a draft dodging racist who fact checks out to a 14 percent truth rate.

        ???

        Weren’t you among those who laughed at Trump for misspeaking???

        Should you be held to the same standard of judgment that you hold others to?

        And, I’ll add….

        This is not an isolated incident for you. You’ve made plenty of errors such as this during your time here.

        I’ve never ridiculed you for it, and I’m not now. I am, however, pointing it out.

        • William

          Lets get back on track here Skippy. This isn’t about you and it isn’t about me.
          It’s about a draft dodger who feels up his daughter in public, claims he saw Muslims dancing in the street after 911 (a complete lie), has hurt countless small business people through planned bankruptcy, just paid twenty five million to settle a suit over a fake school, has paid fines for racist renting practices, and I could go on and on. These are facts, not innuendo. Documented and easily accessed. My President has lead a completely scandal free administration. No indictments, no dirty little closets.
          It’s not judgement.
          I don’t want a president who brags about grabbing women by their genitalia. I’m funny like that. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5d114458c45a10f44dbb99f12902a7924d136359dd7bd205db4bf65ee6f4059a.jpg

          • ohpaleasegivemeabreak

            that should be “hated by most white PHONY xtians”.

          • trees
            • Hirightnow

              spit take

            • William

              No indictments, no charges, nothing. Just Fox fed innuendo. Try again. Key phrase here Skippy. Read the caption on your fake news video “Media reports”. That’s not an indictment charge or conviction. Seriously your troll skills are terrible.

            • Bunya

              LOL!!! You post something defecated by Fox and claim it’s “news”?

        • Hirightnow

          Actually, “except” is a correct usage.

          • trees

            The word he was looking for is “accept”

            The context, “to accept as president”

            • Hirightnow

              Both words are correct, as verbs: to “accept”, one doesn’t oppose the subject. To “except”, one leaves out the subject.
              Either way is proper English.

        • William

          I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest my errors in spelling are a little less offensive than bragging about sexually assaulting women. BTW, Irony check here. 1. You clowns impeached a president who had consensual sex with a woman in the white house, but are fine with a sexual predator. …correction ADMITTED sexual predator as president. 2. You screamed bloody murder over the *gasp* alledged damaging and later baseless contention that Hillary’s e-mails endangered national security, but are perfectly fine with a hostile government playing with our election, and hacking into our electronic communications. I’m sure Cheeto-Hitlers appointee as SOS a good friend of Putin is just a coincidence. Get back to me when your boy releases his tax returns.

          • trees

            1. You clowns impeached a president who had consensual sex with a woman in the white house

            Impeachment of Bill Clinton
            From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

            Floor proceedings of the U.S. Senate during the trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. House managers are seated beside the quarter-circular tables on the left and the president’s personal counsel on the right.
            The impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was initiated by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998. The charges stemmed from his extramarital affair with former White House Intern Monica Lewinsky and his testimony about the affair during a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones.

            Clinton is a known sexual predator, he has a history that is well documented. He was impeached for committing perjury, and for suborning perjury.

            • bpollen

              Proof of Clinton’s being a sexual predator?. That requires actual indictments and convictions. Rumor, innuendo, supposition… that’s what’s “known?” What is “known” is what has actual facts, verifiable facts, to back it up. Ergo, with no proof, your claim go poof!

            • William

              Try reading my post AGAIN. I wrote “1. You clowns impeached a president who had consensual sex with a woman in the white house”.

              Key word is “who” not “for”. You can make up your own facts but not my implications. BTW, and this is the most hysterical part of that entire debacle. The impeachment efforts were led by a serial adulterer, Gingrich and a guy (Hastert) who is in jail this very moment for paying off little boys he molested. Clinton a known sexual predator? Really? You want to go with that? I find that hysterical coming from someone who supports this guy. Your move Mr. indignant.
              https://www.youtube.com/embed/FnMAo1T3OzA

              • trees

                We’ll use your standard. Has he been tried and convicted in a court of law?

                • William

                  That film is what we in the law enforcement community call a spontaneous confession of character. If you saw a video of your daughters basketball coach saying the same thing would that person still be a coach? Get real. This is someone who is going to take the oath of office bragging about sexually assaulting women. So lets use my standard.
                  Has Bill Clinton been convicted? You are going a very long way to divert from the fact that your boy bragged about molesting women. Bill Clinton is not taking the oath, neither is Hillary. Please explain how a self admitted sex offender is a fit president.

                  • trees

                    His explanation was that it was bs between males, that it was “locker room braggadocio”. No one woman ever filed charges back at the time. Do I think he’s a sexual predator, I honestly don’t know. Does being accused as such disqualify him, no. Are the women who have since made the allegations credible? I find it a stretch, I mean, why didn’t the pursue charges back at the time?? Can he be tried and convicted? I would think, let’s see what happens…

                    • William

                      Is that what you clowns call it when you disrespect women by bragging about molesting them? Locker room talk? You mean he was lying about molesting woman? Why would someone make up a story about committing a crime? That’s psychotic. BTW, there are pending lawsuits against Cheeto-Hitler. Ironically, and thanks to Paula Jones, it is completely legal and proper to sue a sitting president. That case was presented to the Supreme Court by one George Conway , a lawyer who is married to Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway. Irony meets Karma.
                      So Trump is either a sexual predator who brags about it, or a liar who makes up stories about molesting women. Which is it, and do you even care? I suggest you really don’t.

                • bpollen

                  He admitted that he engaged in sexual assault. Can you say that about Bill Clinton? Got the film clip of him bragging about how he is a sexual predator, like you claim? You make lots of claims that seem to be short on actual facts, so your “claims” are not credible unless you can back it up. Multitudes of claims, we need a plethora of facts and corroboration. That is your weak spot – backing up all of your claims.

          • trees

            2. You screamed bloody murder over the *gasp* alledged damaging and later baseless contention that Hillary’s e-mails endangered national security

            Is it your contention that Clintons’ conducting all of her official email on a home brewed private server kept in various unsecured locations, and without any verified security protocols, a server that was found to contain SAPs, after she had dilligently wiped it clean, was never a threat to National Security? She removed from the government record for two years all of the official email, she had email from Obama, although Obama denied knowing about her bathroom server, and she only returned the records to the government after deleting what she determined to be personal….

            • William

              You don’t get to divert this time. You clowns wasted years and millions. The director of the FBI came out and CLEARLY told us that nothing Hillary Clinton did concerning her e-mails rose to the level of a crime. NOW, back to current events. There are no less than 17 agencies claiming a Russian interference into our election process. Where is your outrage? You are more concerned with an American Secretary of State and her e-mails than a hostile nation and it’s interference with our Constitutional process? Seriously. Try addressing the issue.

        • dewired4u

          it would be more reassuring if the guy knew the difference between president and precedent, and William isn’t about to be the president.

      • Hirightnow

        fify

      • Deplorable Ratso

        Politifact is far left leaning and not credible

        • dewired4u

          how come you people just make sh*t up?

        • whatthe46

          and Alex Jones pizzagate is real and Sandy Hook was fake? you people lie and it’s caused heartache.

    • dewired4u

      It’s about this orange idiot being a putin tool that’s just one of the problems. are you one of the 37% of republicans who love putin?

    • Red Mann

      We want every possible measure taken to avoid the oncoming debacle. He does not deserve to be President, he will disgrace the office and the country. Just enough ignorant, hateful and/or greedy people voted in the right (wrong) places to get this f*cking idiot a “win” in the EC. Not mention the majority of those who voted voted for Clinton, by a wide margin. He has no mandate, but he is already tearing things down.

      • trees

        At least you’re honest. You will do anything, anything, to prevent the duly elected from taking office.

        Were you ok with those who opposed Obama doing the same?

        • Red Mann

          Obama was opposed because he was black and a Democrat, so there was no valid reason to oppose him. Trump is a despicable, lying, amoral fraud. One of these things is not like to other.

          • trees

            You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

            • Hirightnow

              What facts does Red have wrong?

              • trees

                The absolute statement, that he was opposed solely because he was either black, or a Democrat. There are those who opposed him over his divisive nature, his hyper partisanship…

                • Hirightnow

                  Granted, but how often was “policy” cited by his detractors,as opposed to him being a “Muslim”, a “Kenyan”, a “Dictator”, etc.?
                  If you would, I’d like a link (from a decent source) to something stating how President Obama somehow acted outside of his authority, or acted in a way that wasn’t befitting the office.

                  • Lyndia

                    That occurred ALL of the time. He was called, bozo, obummer, and every other name. They talked about his wife, children, mother and father and everybody he was associated with, in addition to having a do nothing president.

                    • Hirightnow

                      And you profess that.
                      Now let us have this.

            • whatthe46

              it’s NOT an opinion numb nuts, it’s a FACT. something you and your racist ilk seem remarkably allergic to.

    • ohpaleasegivemeabreak

      You seem to think he can get by with treasonous acts.

      We all know how much republicans WORSHIP a criminal.
      SMH

    • bpollen

      Hasn’t that entire horse been turned to pate? I mean, you KEEP BEATING IT, over and over and over and over…

      Who you trying to convince, Sapling?

      • trees

        Who you trying to convince, Sapling?

        The multitude running around proclaiming Hillary the actual winner of the election…

        • bpollen

          Oh… you are trying to convince the non-existent multitude that you imagine proclaim that Hillary won the EC. You know what, Sprout? I am failing to see ANY of these people. Perhaps you have actual links to this MULTITUDE proclaiming what you fantasized? And, since multitude means “a large number,” you obviously must be able to provide a large number of links, right? Since you are here constantly beating that horse, I should expect you to have just OOOOOOODLES of links to people here claiming Hillary won the EC. Whip it out, Sprout!

          Or is this another non-factual hallucination on your part, and you won’t have ANY sites making the point that Hillary actually won the EC? Is this HYPERBOLE combined with PARANOIA, all wrapped up in “ONLY *I* SEE THE TRUTH” like the average Infowars “false flag” that they posit a MULTITUDE of times?

          • trees

            The multitude refuse to acknowledge the EC, and they are legion….

            You, yourself, have maintained that she is the election “winner” based on her “winning” of the popular vote.

            • William

              That’s not what you wrote.

              You wrote “The multitude running around proclaiming Hillary the actual winner of the election…”
              I would like to read all about that. I mean you didn’t just pull that out of your ass right? I need to click on one of the links that describes these multitudes and their activities, because apparently my news feed isn’t reporting this stuff. Thanks in advance.

              • trees

                Clearly, you haven’t been paying attention. There is a multitude claiming that Hillary actually won, that Russia hacked the election, and that Trump is not the true election winner…

                And they claim that in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/13/one-third-of-clinton-supporters-say-trump-election-is-not-legitimate-poll-finds/?utm_term=.52af40594f65

                http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/13/51-non-white-hillary-clinton-supporters-accept-trump-legitimate-president.html

                • bpollen

                  Again, the same claim with the same dearth of corroboration, proof, backup, supportive data and a whole HOST of synonyms for “FACT.”

                  Why can’t you get it up? Evidence-wise, that is? Sounding a little like “The Boy Who Cried Wolf and Dates Chicken Little.”

                  • whatthe46

                    “”The Boy Who Cried Wolf and Dates Chicken Little.”” love it!

                    • trees

                      Who won the election?

                    • whatthe46

                      Hillary Clinton. you know this and you keep making me repeat myself.

                • William

                  Who is they? Link please.

                • bpollen

                  Funny, your petition doesn’t address your point. “Unfit to serve” is not a synonym for “not the winner.”

                • William

                  Yeah, they claim he is unfit. I think the same thing. Now get to the part where “multitudes are running around claiming Hillary won”

                  • trees

                    If you’re illegitimate you’re disqualified. Gee, what does this mean? It means they think Hillary won by default.

                    They think Hillary actually won.

                    • William

                      You don’t get to tell me what people are “thinking” You don’t know. Stop with the smokescreen and get that link to the “The multitude running around proclaiming Hillary the actual winner of the election…”

                    • trees

                      whatthe46 trees • 6 hours ago
                      Hillary Clinton. you know this and you keep making me repeat myself.

                      Here is your proof. From the above posted admission we can simply extrapolate out the numbers…

                      The above represents what, 1 in 20? 450,000,000 divided by 20

                      Equals???

                      A pretty good sized group, a multitude.

                    • William

                      I’m pretty much done playing with you and trying to get you to qualify your inane contentions. That said, I leave you with this oh so ironic and applicable tweet that the Mandarin Moron posted after the 2012 election. Enjoy. LOL. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2031a87787d8638f5fb0abd8461b496fe0df04f4d0a65b24e0f1f5bf1935ecad.jpg

                    • bpollen

                      Apparently, in trees’ home, the enchanted forest, math works different…
                      Multitude = Zero
                      Legion = Zero
                      Many = Zero
                      Fanciful claims = myriad, a cornucopia, a plethora, multitudinous, copious, manifold, multitudes, legion…

                    • bpollen

                      English, don’t leave home without it.

                      Illegitimate does NOT equal disqualified. Is an illegitimate child disqualified from being a child? Not hardly.

                      Anyhow, how does this address this multitude of which you speak? You know, the ones who claim that Hillary WON the election. What does this have to do with that?

                      What does this mean, you ask? Then you proceed to tell us what people you don’t know THINK, based on what, exactly?

            • bpollen

              OK. No links, no proof, your claim? Go poof.

              Multitudes, legions, mobs, crowds, droves, flocks, masses, packs, rabble, swarms, throngs, troops, waves of people… and you can’t provide one link. Gee, that sure shows how “accurate” and “credible” your claim is, cuz nothing says “i’m right” quite like saying “Is too!” Your proof? Reiterating your initial premise and using a synonym. And guess what a synonym of for that kind of proof would be? Well, there’s “not-Shinola” and “crapola” and “worthless” and “not proof” and… well, the choices are LEGION!

              • William

                WAIT! I know who those multitudes are. Same Muslims that were dancing in the streets after *snicker* 7-11.

                • bpollen

                  That’s right! Muslim Multitudes with Slurpees, dancing in the parking lot to Niyaz…

            • bpollen

              Still no links. Really makes you seem credible. Claim that there are MULTITUDES and yet can’t provide a single example.

              There is also the fact that you just friggin’ LIED. That’s called a strawman argument. You put words into my mouth so you can then attack THOSE words as opposed to the ones I actually use.

              I never said she won the ELECTION. That, Sap, can I call ya Sap?… anyhow, Sap… I have never said she won the election. I have said REPEATEDLY that she won the popular vote. Do I have to provide links for that? Because *I* can back up that claim. Can you back your claim that *I* said she won the “election?” Of course not. Just like your “multitude” claim. You keep failing to back it up. Why is that? Could it be because you are LYING there too? Because you just lied about me. And THAT sure helps that credibility problem of yours, eh? “I’m so credible that I have to lie to have some sort of point to make when I don’t have actual facts .”

              • trees

                What’s the point of your repeatedly stating, “Hillary WON the popular vote???

                If it’s not to proclaim her the actual, or rightful, winner….

                I mean…

                What’s the point???

                Do you do it because you feel that she should somehow be appointed as POTUS???

                But, if she didn’t win, then she shouldn’t be appointed….

                Right?

                • bpollen

                  What’s the point of getting all up in arms about the point? Get stuck in your craw? Delegitimize your Soon To Be Precedent? Hurt your feewings?

                  It’s a statement of fact. You seem to have a real problem with facts. So much so that you are willing to lie in order to counter them. You claim that Amurka rejected Clinton. Maybe that’s why you have such a problem with the popular vote! It blows that “rejected” trope right outta the water – more people ACCEPTED than rejected. She lost the EC, but the actual American public chose her OVER Trump. Snipe, lie, kvetch, hyperventilate, or whatever – the EC is not the American voting public, so America didn’t reject her. If anybody did, it was the EC.

                  So, I reply to your “what’s the point” query by throwing it right back at you. What is YOUR problem with that fact? Do you rail against because you think that Trump is right about MILLIONS of illegal votes and corrupt and dishonest election officials? Because it debunks the “rejection” trope or the “landslide” trope or the “mandate” trope or the “historic win” trope? What is it about the fact that drives you to such a frenzy that you have to resort to lies and strawman arguments?

                  The simple facts – Trump won EC, Clinton won Popular Vote. The win by Trump was not “historic” (except for his total lack of experience or expertise) nor a “landslide” (not without redefining the meaning of the word) nor a “mandate” (popular vote, remember?) nor a “rejection” (popular vote AGAIN!!!) as you and other post-fact Trumpians posit.

    • Willys41

      Gee, you’re so sensitive to any criticism of the Reichfuhrer. You better get used to it or the next couple of years are going to be really painful for you — assuming Trump actually retains the office.

      Assuming HE manages to survive the criticism lol.

  • robert

    The trumpster already broke a 47 yr tradition by not posting his taxes Why not shoot for the moon until your no longer news worthy

  • Deplorable Ratso

    President Obama is still the president.

  • Deplorable Ratso
    • Hirightnow

      Normally, I would delete any reference to “Pepe”…This one, though…

  • oldfart

    Screw treason, I’ll settle for impeachment.

  • mickcollin

    Intent is the key to most crimes. IF the U.S. government does not act soon on the ‘mistake’ that was made, mistakes that occurred during the 2017 election; we should all be concerned.

    Nothing seems remotely normal about the reactions to events, the responses verbal and otherwise to events that truly define what the United States has been for over 225 years. Senator’s McCain and Graham must investigate everything and IF they do; this may be the shortest administration in history!