Basically what I read, too.

Like, "wow - that's fucked up... and completely unsurprising."

> Believe me, I wish it were treason, because then it could be grounds for impeachment.

The grounds for impeachment are purposefully ambiguous.

Judges have been impeached because Congress didn't like their decorum.

So, since the "grounds for impeachment" are subjectively decided by the party in power, I assert that there is literally nothing under the sun that doesn't directly attack a majority of the Republican party directly, that are currently grounds for impeachment for Trump.

Oh fuck off. Nobody said anything about constitutional definitions. Refusing to protect the US against attacks from a foreign, hostile, nation because you're in fucking bed and admire their fascist leader with them meets any reasonable dictionary definition of treason.

He's already committed impeachable offenses in violating numerous laws including the [1]Impoundment Control Act [wikipedia.org] that was passed in 1974 directly as a response to Nixon trying to do the same shit:

> Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the president may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within forty-five days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation.

It doesn't seem like he's requesting. And I have a feeling that the funds will not "be made available for obligation" anywhere in the same vicinity of 45 days after his not-requests.

By the way, this is also a piece of why Trump was impeached the first time. Congress passed a law saying that $X will be spent on ${THIN

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974#Impoundment

Where did you get the idea that "enemy" is defined solely as a declared war? See Article III, section 3 of the Constitution. It doesn't say anything of the sort.

By your definition, the US has never had a single enemy since 1945. Not in Korea or Vietnam. Not through the whole cold war. Not the Taliban or ISIS or Al-Qaeda or any other groups that actively attacked American soldiers and civilians. Not a single one of them was an enemy, according to you. But that's just your definition, not anything foun

This is not engaging in foreign policy. He literally ordered the government not to defend against attacks by a country that is actively engaged in attacks against us. That is giving aid and comfort to an enemy. It isn't even an ambiguous case.

Foreign policy would be things like holding meetings and negotiating treaties. That isn't what we're talking about.

So appeasement of the guy who rattles the nuclear war sabre.

I don't think that's going to work out the way you think it will. Give Neville Chamberlain a wikipedia lookup for why.

Is Reagan still the greatest republican? He had this to say on the matter.

Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness—pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the State, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world .... So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze

Calling him a traitor is hysterical.

However, your your argument for appeasement, that I'm not sure you even made, is equally absurd.

Cessation of offensive actions is not in and of itself unreasonable, but stopping reporting of Russia's threats/offensive actions leaves American infrastructure vulnerable for no (non treasonous) reason. Everyone that runs any large IT organization, for example, depends on intel from our government on hostile actions to be on the lookout for.

> "CISA employees were reportedly informed verbally that they were to pause any work on Russian cyber threats"

This is clearly treason. What part of this don't you understand?

From the summary above:

> CISA employees were reportedly informed verbally that they were to pause any work on Russian cyber threats.

People are given orders verbally when their superiors want deniability that they gave the order.

Someone needs to remake [1]this cartoon [senate.gov] with just a big fat Elon looming over the Senate. Or perhaps a big bottle of "Musk" as a thinly-veiled metaphor, with stench fumes choking everyone.

[1] https://www.senate.gov/art-artifacts/historical-images/political-cartoons-caricatures/38_00392.htm

> I hear that a lot, and I could believe it. But I also heard about the Russians and Hunter Biden from the other time which was just plain BS. You'll have to do better than just use innuendo. If you're going to make an accusation against gabbard like that, you need to back it up.

[1]"Tulsi Gabbard’s history with Russia is even more concerning than you think" [independent.co.uk]

Of course, that isn't proof that she's a Russian agent. Never attribute to malice and all that.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tulsi-gabbard-russian-connection-dni-trump-syria-b2692244.html

> If you're going to make an accusation against gabbard like that, you need to back it up.

> Otherwise I agree with you entirely.

This Rolling Stone article details her love of Russian Propaganda. [1]https://archive.ph/QdNXl [archive.ph]

[1] https://archive.ph/QdNXl

This Rolling Stone article explains it pretty well. [1]https://archive.ph/QdNXl [archive.ph]

[1] https://archive.ph/QdNXl

Hillary Clinton repeated a claim that's been made for many years before she said it. I recall the photos of Gabbard with Putin circulating long before Clinton said anything.

The Steele Dossier was originally commissioned by a Republican anti-Trump group, and then the funding was taken over by the Democrats. The story you link to speaks nothing of the credibility of the dossier (the CNN article reports it was improperly funded as "legal services" rather than "opposition research"), which for the most part was

A third possibility: it's a simple marriage of convenience. Trump (and his inner circle) are OK with cyberattacks as long as the cyberattackers promise to help them get re-elected.

> This gets trotted out but just imagine if every household had an AR-15. The government doesn't have the resources to stop that many people. Not to mention, the military would also have many defectors.

> So yes, I really do think tens of millions of civilians with AR-15s is a huge problem for a government wanting to take over.

It might pose something of a problem for "a government taking over", if you're talking about a ground invasion by a hostile foreign power. It has no relevance at all for the situation we are facing-- which is a bunch of democratically elected leaders doing very bad things. (Trump is the figurehead but he's not acting alone). What do you expect all those people are going to *do* with their millions of AR-15s, anyway? March on Washington? In the (incredibly unlikely) event that they prevail by sheer force

Now imagine that, like most fascist regimes, or tyrannies in general, instead of going after most people, which is logistically impractical even if most people aren't armed, the regime simply targets unpopular but blameless minorities - you know, like jews, blacks, LGBT, etc.

Do you think those groups are actually going to be able to arm themselves knowing the tyranny will be backed by 30%+ of the rest of the population, with 30% not caring, and the other 30% not directly provoked and uncertain whether they

If every household had an AR-15, we'd probably see multiple school shootings per day plus a crapload of other mayhem. If 0.1% of the population committed violent crimes (this is likely an under-estimate) you'd be giving about 350,000 violent criminals access to AR-15s. What could possibly go wrong?

At that point, the government would indeed be the least of your worries, so I guess there's that.

Also... guns are a technology. No social problem has ever been fixed by technology.

You have to fix the underlying social issues. No matter how much weaponry a private citizen accumulates, the government is going to be able to out-do that dozens of times over. Very helpful to be holed up with your AR-15 while the army puts a tank round through your house.