At What Point Will Trump Sniffers Put Their Love of Country Before Their Love of Trump?

[Jason Todd!!!]

My mind keeps traveling back to that moment in the second presidential debate when both candidates were asked what they admired about each other. I have to say, sitting at home, the question stumped me. I guess in a pinch I could say I admired Clinton’s tenacity, doggedness, and ambition. They’re all good qualities in a politician. But Trump? Racked my brain. Has he done a single redeeming thing in his entire life? None that I could find in any biographies or news reports. Clinton’s answer — that she admired his kids — was a good try, but also manifestly untrue. Trump’s kids seem to me to have close to no moral compass, are utterly absorbed into the family cult, and follow the same truth-churning, money-grubbing, corner-cutting, ethics-free recklessness of their father. They’re a walking argument for a hike in the estate tax.

Which brings me to Don Jr. Regular readers will know I’ve been determinedly agnostic about the whole Russia-collusion subplot. Now I agree with David French, one of the less tribal writers at National Review: “If you had told me last week that there existed an e-mail chain where a Trump contact explicitly tried to set up a meeting between a purported Russian official and the Trump senior team to facilitate official Russian efforts to beat Clinton, I’d have thought you’d been spending too much time in the deranged corners of Twitter.” And yet here we are.

These are the words that will resonate for quite a while, typed just 17 minutes after Don Jr. was told the Clinton dirt was coming from the Kremlin: “If it’s what you say I love it.” If you’d been tasked with inventing an email chain proving an intent to “collude” with a hostile foreign government, could you have come up with something as water-tight as Don Jr.’s? I don’t mean actual collusion; I mean intent.


This is not about being dumb. It’s not about being ruthless. It’s not about oppo research. It’s not even about dirty tricks. This is about a very basic level of patriotism. It’s about a deep question of how you were brought up and what your values are. And Trump values are foul. Yesterday, as if to prove the point, the paterfamilias revealed his own view of a case in which a foreign despot offered his campaign dirt on his opponent: “If you got a call and said, ‘Listen I have information on Hillary and the DNC,’ or whatever it was they said, most people are going to take that meeting, I think.” Even when it’s coming from a foreign enemy. And so we learn one more time: If it ever comes to a choice between Trump and America, Trump will pick Trump.

There is a reason the Founders made the presidency — alone of all the offices of state — reserved for a natural-born American. There’s a reason every new citizen must swear this oath: “I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.” The Founders were deeply worried that the republic could be corrupted by foreign influence, money, or power. No office was more critical in this than that of commander-in-chief. And it was in part for this exact contingency that impeachment was included in the Constitution. As ultra-right Republican Andy McCarthy just wrote in National Review:

The standard for impeachment, the commission of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” is not concerned with criminal offenses found in the penal statute books and suitable for courtroom prosecution. It relates instead to the president’s high fiduciary duty to the American people and allegiance to our system of government. Alexander Hamilton put it best in Federalist No. 65. Impeachable offenses are those “Which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
The bickering over collusion ‘crimes’ misses the point. If an unfit person holds the presidency, the danger to our society is that he will abuse the power that he wields. The imperative is to remove him from office.
No crime need be committed. The question is whether we can trust this president to put the interests of the U.S. before himself or a foreign enemy — or some horribly compromised combination of the last two. If there is any doubt about this, the doubt has to be removed. That is what impeachment was invented for. It is to remove an unfit person who has proven himself willing and able to abuse the power entrusted to him.

And so we begin to get the answer to a particularly pointed question: How much do Republicans actually love their country? And when exactly will they prove it?

[Aldrichtom]

Name me the exact Law Trump Jr. btroke, I don't like Trump either but lets
not chase Redd Herrings

[Freezer]

If I don't reply to this "Aldrichtom" <Aldri...@stilllost.com>
post, the terroists win.

> Name me the exact Law Trump Jr. btroke, I don't like Trump
> either but lets not chase Redd Herrings
>

1) Constantly playiing both sides just makes you look like you do
it to stir the shit.

2) It only counts a crime if you actually comptent at it?

3) THIS ONE.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

--
My name is Freezer and my anti-drug is porn.
http://mst3kfreezer.livejournal.com/
@allhailfreezer

[hobb...@yahoo.com]

Source of the article, please?

[Aldrichtom]

On 16-Jul-2017, Freezer <free...@hotSPAMTHISmail.com> wrote:

> 1) Constantly playiing both sides just makes you look like you do
> it to stir the shit.

It's called searching for truth, I read both the New York Times and the Wall
Street Journal and I view Meet The Press, I watch Bloomberg News as my daily
source and I watch Desus/Nero
and I read various other souses along the way: to be blunt I'm not a
sockpuppet like a few here


> 2) It only counts a crime if you actually competent at it?

When you find stuff where I'm wrong let me know

> 3) THIS ONE.
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

That Link is for financial which has not been proved, at best you have
people screaming the Sky is Falling and there is no proof.
Trump during the debates with Hillary admitted he liked Russian support for
knowledge

[me]

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 4:04:01 AM UTC-4, Jason Todd!!! wrote:

They won't. Ever. It's not how they roll. His supporters are fine with whatever Trump does because it's their guy and not Hillary. As for the rest of the Repubs, there is only party, they never have, and never will give a single solitary shit about the country other than in ways they can exploit it and make themselves wealthier

[robert stickler]

correct. i am fine with whatever trump does. i support him completely.

[Freezer]

If I don't reply to this "Aldrichtom" <Aldri...@stilllost.com>
post, the terroists win.

>

> On 16-Jul-2017, Freezer <free...@hotSPAMTHISmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1) Constantly playiing both sides just makes you look like
>> you do it to stir the shit.
>
> It's called searching for truth, I read both the New York
> Times and the Wall Street Journal and I view Meet The Press, I
> watch Bloomberg News as my daily source and I watch Desus/Nero
> and I read various other souses along the way: to be blunt I'm
> not a sockpuppet like a few here

Oh, so you're on "I'm On Team No Side, which makes me smarter
than you." Cool.

>> 2) It only counts a crime if you actually competent at it?
>
> When you find stuff where I'm wrong let me know
>
>
>> 3) THIS ONE.
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20
>
> That Link is for financial which has not been proved, at best
> you have people screaming the Sky is Falling and there is no
> proof.

The law forbids illegal campaign contributions. I think
illegally obtained documents on your opponent counts.

And last I checked, recieving stolen goods is still illegal. Or
is this another "It doesn't count because he didn't go through
with it" scenario?

> Trump during the debates with Hillary admitted he liked
> Russian support for knowledge

He also said neither he nor anyone on his campaign had met with
any Russian officials during the campaign. If you can point out
how that's somehow not a blatant lie, I'm listening.

[me]

Of course you do. You are the perfect Trump supporter, no thoughts of your own, and stupid enough to swallow whatever bullshit he peddles 100%

[robert stickler]

damn right. i trust him completely.

[me]

of course. because you are pathetic

[Aldrichtom]

Oh, so you're on "I'm On Team No Side, which makes me smarter
than you." Cool.

You are a sockpuppet, just like Janis - you read what to think

On 16-Jul-2017, Freezer <free...@hotSPAMTHISmail.com> wrote:

> The law forbids illegal campaign contributions. I think
> illegally obtained documents on your opponent counts.

You can't just stretch law to fit your purpose's, some times reality sucks

> He also said neither he nor anyone on his campaign had met with
> any Russian officials during the campaign. If you can point out
> how that's somehow not a blatant lie, I'm listening.

Your right and I agree, I will not dispute Trump is a liar

[syv...@gmail.com]

Know where your argument fell apart?

Six letters.

"I think".

[robert stickler]

Trump rules

[Freezer]

If I don't reply to this syv...@gmail.com post, the terroists win.

> Know where your argument fell apart?
>
> Six letters.
>
> "I think".

Welcome back, Rob. You weren't missed.

[Freezer]

If I don't reply to this "Aldrichtom" <Aldri...@stilllost.com>
post, the terroists win.

> You are a sockpuppet, just like Janis - you read what to think

* starts a list for Aldrichtom - adds "sockpuppet" to it *

[The Chad]

Freezer <free...@hotSPAMTHISmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA7B4E9A71B00Cf...@46.165.242.75:

> If I don't reply to this syv...@gmail.com post, the terroists win.
>
>> Know where your argument fell apart?
>>
>> Six letters.
>>
>> "I think".
>
> Welcome back, Rob. You weren't missed.

It's a fake.

[Jason Todd!!!]

Andrew Sullivan at NYMAG.com

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/if-republicans-love-their-country-when-will-they-show-it.html

[Jason Todd!!!]

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 3:35:33 PM UTC-4, Aldrichtom wrote:
> Name me the exact Law Trump Jr. btroke, I don't like Trump either but lets
> not chase Redd Herrings

To expound on Freezer's answer: it's not merely what law Trumpelina broke, but how it fits into the overall examination of interference in the election vis a vis The Logan Act.

Jason

[syv...@gmail.com]

And who knows more about fakes than you?

[Aldrichtom]

On 17-Jul-2017, "Jason Todd!!!" <janklo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> To expound on Freezer's answer: it's not merely what law Trumpelina broke,
> but how it fits into the overall examination of interference in the
> election vis a vis The Logan Act.

I'd like to see something for legality to hang their hat on, but it is not
there YET.
Watching Judge Jeanie on Saturday on Fox, she stated that if she were
running for Office she would make a deal with the devil to win. This is the
Trump/ Republican outlook, ah but Janis will say what about the Democrats,
Democrats are not stating their religious high ground.
One should note at end of show, the Judge took us on a tour of the new bible
museum wearing her Jewel laden hard hat.

[The Chad]

syv...@gmail.com wrote in
news:2619764c-14d3-419b...@googlegroups.com:

I've learned plenty about fakes just from busting frauds like you on
this group.

Now shut up and fuck off, boy.

[%]

only a fake can bust a fake

[Freezer]

If I don't reply to this Aldrichtom post, the terroists win.

> Watching Judge Jeanie on Saturday on Fox,

And that was your first mistake.

[robert stickler]

you're patrick.

[%]

you're an unsucked boner

[robert stickler]

You're Patrick

[Aldrichtom]

If you read the
Post as you did not, you would of found I berated her. I watch the
opposition

[%]

On 2017-07-19 12:03 PM, robert stickler wrote:
> You're Patrick
>
boner

[Freezer]

If I don't reply to this Aldrichtom post, the terroists win.

> If you read the
> Post as you did not, you would of found I berated her. I watch
> the opposition

I read your post. I didn't question the facts, I questioned your
judgement.

[Freezer]

If I don't reply to this Aldrichtom post, the terroists win.

> If you read the
> Post as you did not, you would of found I berated her. I watch
> the opposition

Also: That was a joke, son. </foghorn>