Secret CIA source claims Russia rigged 2016 election

Meanwhile, boyfriend Erickson maybe in a lot of trouble.


As the esteemed Seb Gorka noted some time back, they give people the chair for that.

Would be amazing if Mueller has the treason goods on Trump, his family, and the vast network of strangely Russia-affiliated Senators & Congressmen. Too much to hope for I know but still, would be amazing.

It’s shocking how callously Fox News & the GOP are ignoring all these seemingly treasonous acts.

Mueller won’t get any of them on treason due to the narrow definition we have for treason. People might well call it that though.

They’re not ignoring it. They are co-conspirators and are trying to hide that fact.

Yes. Using the word treason is not necessarily accurate.

Per the constitution:

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.

We are not at war with Russia, or consider them an “enemy” a rival maybe, enemy adjacent maybe, but not someone we are at war with. North Korea would fit this bill, but not Russia or China.

It appears treasonous, but isn’t necessarily fitting to the letter definition of the word “Treason”

George Bluth in Arrested Development committed “light treason” because the developments were to the benefit of the Iraqi regime, who we were at war with at the time. (or close to war with)

Anyway the Trump stuff feels to me much more like when Nixon worked with the South Vietnamese to stall the peace talks before the 68 elections. Treason adjacent for sure.

You don’t have a first amendment right to conspire.

That may be correct, but that’s a different crime. Just talking to someone isn’t a crime.

This hasn’t been tested but I’m skeptical: there’s a fairly huge distinction between “speech” and representations of future US commitments or actions.

People keep misunderstanding free speech: it’s not carte blance to use the media of communication to do any damn thing you want. If you use communication to do illegal things, make illegal promises, solicit illegal acts, etc., then the mere fact that you were “speaking” doesn’t protect you.

Free speech is important but it’s not nearly as overbroad as many seem to think it is.

I suppose the test case is Nixon and Vietnam. If Nixon convinced the South Vietnamese not to agree to a cease fire as a way to win the 68 election — which seems to be fairly well established — do you think that was a crime, or not?

I think it was a crime.

I would consider any country an enemy if they’re attempting to directly influence our elections and manipulate our President. The tricky part is that the Republican party itself is basically an enemy of the United States, given how much they continue to act against its best interests. Line 'em all up!

Trying to fuck with another country’s elections is the act of an enemy, but I’m not sure whether it’s beyond the pale of the little game we and Russia have been playing with each other since World War II. Such an act might be a pretext for war, but in light of the nuclear arsenals, that would be madness, so the better option I would think is a) clean up our own house & prosecute all collaborators, and b) improve our security against future such attacks.

And of course that won’t happen until we get a competent person in the White House. I don’t think they’ve done a single thing to fix the gaping holes in our security since 2016.

I dunno, I basically don’t believe that the entire intelligence community is sitting around waiting for an idiot President to tell them how to do their jobs. And if legislation is needed, then it’s the idiot Republicans in the House and the Senate who are the real slackers, not Trump.

You don’t need to reach so far back.

John Kerry met with Iranian officials this year in order to try to salvage the nuclear treaty. Is that a crime?

Maybe. It probably depends on what was said, just as it would in the Flynn case.

I’m not a legal person but this is espionage right? Which is a serious crime, but it’s not Death Penalty serious.

Depends on the level of espionage and how we want to react. I’d say ask the Rosenbergs, but, well…

Generally we agreed to not kill each others spies much during the Cold War, usually ended up trading them back and forth as we caught the other guys and the like.

No 3D chess required. Putin’s goal, all along, is and has been to create chaos in the US. Butina spilling the beans doesn’t work against that goal - quite to the contrary. The NRA and the GOP are going to deny, deny, deny all the way into the courts - and a lot of people are going to believe those denials no matter what she admits to. The resulting political chaos could last for years unless people wake up and sweep the GOP conclusively out of power. And as we all (I think) realize, the latter is not going to happen anytime soon.

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1073540390404481025