Trump and his campaign complicit in TREASON?

[TT]

WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of
Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates
had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the
year before the election, according to four current and former American
officials.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html

...Hard to find another word for it than treason really.
Pretty obvious that they were coordinating leaks with Russia; trying to
influence elections in coordination with hostile power.

At least Trump and his campaign have lied about contacts with Russia.
This is in entirely different category than lying about blowjobs.

Of course FBI (Comey) is/was sitting on the info and intelligence
community has to leak this stuff in order for it to become public. The
FBI investigation seems to have taken several months already. Bad!

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:
> WASHINGTON ? Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of
> Donald J. Trump?s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates

Yawn
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[stephenJ]

On 2/15/2017 6:21 AM, TT wrote:
> WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of
> Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates
> had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the
> year before the election, according to four current and former American
> officials.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html
>
>
> ...Hard to find another word for it than treason really.
> Pretty obvious that they were coordinating leaks with Russia; trying to
> influence elections in coordination with hostile power.

Actually, even if it were shown (and it hasn't been, but if) that
Trump's campaign helped the Russians hack in to the DNC/Hillary campaign
servers, heck gave them her passwords, and then gave the Russians a
calendar for the timing of the subsequent leaks to Wiki, not a single
element of that would be anywhere near "treason".




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

> WASHINGTON ? Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of
> Donald J. Trump?s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates

> had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the
> year before the election, according to four current and former American
> officials.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html
>
> ...Hard to find another word for it than treason really.
> Pretty obvious that they were coordinating leaks with Russia; trying to
> influence elections in coordination with hostile power.

Your spins are rather moronic.
Russia to US is not a hostile power.

Hostile
Parche-> Seles,
bin Laden - USA

Adversaries
Seles - Graf
USA- Russia


And a goal of diplomacy, like Trump said, is turn to turn our
adversaries into our friends, and turn our friends into our
allies.

A great man.

[Pelle Svanslös]

The wording, as per wiki, is VERY broad. "... aid to enemies ..." qualifies.

So, yes, he could be up to treason. This is the opinion of many US
experts. Google is your friend.

--
“Donald Trump is the weak man’s vision of a strong man.”
-- Charles Cooke

[TT]

15.2.2017, 18:24, *skriptis kirjoitti:
> Russia to US is not a hostile power.

Russia is hostile power to everyone. Even its own citizens.

You disgust me.

[TT]

Hard to describe with another word the act of assisting hostile foreign
government attacking your democracy. That IS treason.

[stephenJ]

Wrong on both counts. The USA definition of treason refers to giving aid
to enemies, meaning countries we are at war with. Russia may seem like
an "enemy" to you but officially, they are no such thing.

Second, treason also refers to attacking or helping others attack the
United States. Your use of "attacking your democracy" is telling, it is
Hillary Clinton campaign propaganda. The fact is, that neither Hillary
nor her campaign nor the DNC are aspects of the government of the United
States. An hack on the DNA and her was just that, an attack on her and
the DNC, not the USA.

Now had Russia hacked US or state government processes, like voting
machines or voting registration files or vote counting systems, that
would have been an attack against the USA, but so far, no evidence of that.

[Pelle Svanslös]

The wording is really VERY broad. " ... aid or comfort to the enemies".
There's at least 3 words that need qualifying. That would be done in
court, not in RST.

No, war is not necessary. Check the list of those convicted of treason.

[TT]

15.2.2017, 20:00, stephenJ kirjoitti:
> Your use of "attacking your democracy" is telling, it is Hillary Clinton
> campaign propaganda.

Then how would you describe Russia trying to influence your elections?

[stephenJ]

"Russia trying to influence my election".

Really, it doesn't matter to me. First, I'm not too concerned about the
source. E.g., Trump and Hillary both had legions of people and
organizations, both officially associated with their campaign and
independent supporters, working around the clock to dig up embarrassing
dirt on each other. Would it make you feel better if it was some USA
conservative group that hacked the DNC emails and spilled their contents
rather than the Russians? What about the big video revelation that Trump
made crude comments about women on that bus? That was spilled by someone
domestic who hated Trump. Would it be worse if Russia had done it?

So the source of the dirt really doesn't bother me.

Second, we in the USA aren't exactly of clean hands on this. Earlier
last year, Obama clearly tried to influence the UK "brexit" vote, he
told the Brits that trade relations with the USA would be worse if
brexit passed. We do that all the time, and surely we also have
undercover efforts by the CIA and the like to do the same as well. So
it's not like we can really take massive umbrage at this.

Do I like the idea of foreign agents and governments trying to influence
our opinion on how to vote? No. Is it a big deal to me? No.

Now, if Russia had actually hacked the actual voting process, that would
be a MUCH more serious matter.

[TT]

There's a difference between foreign government doing it to help
themselves and harm your country vs some domestic actor doing it to try
and help your country.

And I don't think you answered my question.

If Trump & his campaign coordinated with Russia about the hacks then
that is much more serious than Watergate. And of course they did, no
other reason for presidential campaign to communicate with Russian spies.

[stephenJ]

That presumes that (a) Trump getting elected over Hilary harms the USA,
and (b) that Obama knows better than the Brits do about whether brexit
is good for them or not. Obviously, Russia and Obama were trying to do
what was good for them.

> And I don't think you answered my question.
>
> If Trump & his campaign coordinated with Russia about the hacks then
> that is much more serious than Watergate. And of course they did, no
> other reason for presidential campaign to communicate with Russian spies.

Depending on the nature of the hacks, there could be a violation of some
kind of technical internet security law. E.g., if you were to go to my
Facebook page and try to hack my password, is that against the law? I
don't know. If it is, then that would be the legal violation here.

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

Russia is a hostile power to everyone. Even its own citizen.


Wow, really factual and unbiased.
LOL


I knew it all the time, but now it's clear to everyone.

[TT]

Not really. The assumption is that what RUSSIA wants is opposite to
interests of USA.

> and (b) that Obama knows better than the Brits do about whether brexit
> is good for them or not. Obviously, Russia and Obama were trying to do
> what was good for them.
>
>

That's a strawman, I never mentioned Obama.

Of course what Obama said my well be simply factual. There's a
difference between influence by facts and criminal acts.

>> And I don't think you answered my question.
>>
>> If Trump & his campaign coordinated with Russia about the hacks then
>> that is much more serious than Watergate. And of course they did, no
>> other reason for presidential campaign to communicate with Russian spies.
>
> Depending on the nature of the hacks, there could be a violation of some
> kind of technical internet security law. E.g., if you were to go to my
> Facebook page and try to hack my password, is that against the law? I
> don't know. If it is, then that would be the legal violation here.
>

Hacking is of course illegal.

[TT]

'Cyberwarfare'

[stephenJ]

That's silly. What Russia wants is what Russia thinks is good for
Russia. Whether it is good for USA or not is another issue. I live in
USA and am happy Trump was elected not Hillary.

And I couldn't care less whether Russia thinks it's good for Russia or not.

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

So logically the USA should be an eternal enemy of Russia?

It's good that others see clearly how deranged you are.


Don't you have your country? Declare war on Russia and fight them
if you want to.

USA - Russia tensions, are actually dangerous for human life on
Earth, however minuscule the chances of something going wrong.

[TT]

Which is often opposite to interests of USA and rest of the world.

But that's not really the point, but it's instead another government
interfering with your elections and Trump being part of it.

You may be happy with the result but that's irrelevant. And I doubt if
Hillary had done the same and won that you'd be all ok with it...

I think moderate punishment for this kind of treason would be hanging by
the neck until dead. I know Trump wants torture himself but I'm not a
barbarian.

[TT]

Only as long as Russia is the enemy of the whole free world.
Stop answering my posts.

[stephenJ]

... and I've explained what kind of interference is a problem for me and
what kind isn't.

Interference, like Obama did with brexit, meaning providing information
designed to sway opinion? Not a problem. Interference in actual voting
mechanisms? A big problem.

[*skriptis]

Ahahahaa

[Brian W Lawrence]

Maybe you should do the same? As should I.

[TT]

Yes, replying Skriptis is like casting pearls to swine.

No offence.

[The Iceberg]

On Wednesday, 15 February 2017 20:01:02 UTC, *skriptis wrote:
> TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:
> > 15.2.2017, 18:24, *skriptis kirjoitti:
> >> Russia to US is not a hostile power.
> >
> > Russia is hostile power to everyone. Even its own citizens.
> >
> > You disgust me.
> >
>
>
> Russia is a hostile power to everyone. Even its own citizen.
>
>
> Wow, really factual and unbiased.
> LOL
>
>
> I knew it all the time, but now it's clear to everyone.

we've had Iraq, Syria, Libya, secret Yemen war and trying to kill Castro 600 times but Russia is hostile!

[*skriptis]

The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

But Putin has a lethal dagger in his shoe like Rosa Klebb, didn't
you know that?

Hahaha

[TT]

False equivalence.

600 times? They should have sent Bronson. (The Mechanic)

[Brian W Lawrence]

Most of those were simply mad suggestions made by Cuban exiles or
dissidents still in Cuba. The CIA may have offered some encouragement,
including maybe cash, but they were mostly figments of someone's
imagination.

The Soviet Union/Russia has been 'hostile' to most other countries since
the revolution. It did have communist 'friends', but it enforced the
friendship on its own terms. Since ~1992 Russia has seemingly diminished
in power and influence and is trying to reimpose its will on its
neighbours and perceived 'enemies'.

And yet Trump seems unaware of the history. I read/heard that he thinks
Russia will return the Crimea to Ukraine, but the Kremlin also saw that
and said 'not going to happen'.

[*skriptis]

Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:

Is UK going to give back Falklands?

[PeteWasLucky]

Tell this to Trump.

[*skriptis]

PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> Tell this to Trump.
>


First remember that he hasn't done anything yet. It's been all talk.

He
says let's try be friends with Russia. He's bad.
He says they'll have to return Crimea. He's bad.

All talk so far. Nothing seems to please you.


At the same time no one raises more important question, like,
Trump wasn't in charge when all of that happened. He doesn't need
to justify himself one bit.

It was Obama who supported coup in Ukraine, against a democratic
government, tried to gain a foothold militarily there at the very
border or Russia, in a country full of Russians, which obviously
is unachievable, provocative and warmongering.

Russia reacted defensively and Putin secured his black fleet naval
base that was theirs there for even longer than Florida is
American.

You have it all backwards. Putin is neither good or bad here, he
just did what everyone should have seen it coming. Just as
Margaret Thatcher sent her ships to secure Falklands base Putin
did the same with Crimea.

So on a world scale, Putin is neutral, Trump is a positive
character for trying to improve relations, and of course, Obama
was totally a bad guy.

[Brian W Lawrence]

No, but why is that relevant or remotely similar?

[*skriptis]

I'm not surprised you don't see any similarities. You'd post
different stuff and think entirely differently if you were able
to analyze and compare events in unbiased way. As it is, you're
indoctrinated.

Therefore any attempt to explain it to you, would be in vain. Futile.

[Brian W Lawrence]

Well for once you are right, it would be futile. Maybe you could educate
our other readers though, I'm sure they'd enjoy that.

Projection?

[lo yeeOn]

In article <egmfm3...@mid.individual.net>,

For the sake of peace :), I'll take a stab.

Falkands' residents are overwhelmingly British. And upwards of 80
percent of residents in Crimea are either Russians or have Russian
relatives. And an overwhelming majority of Crimean residents want to
associate with Russia, not the strange-looking Kiev government
nurtured by Victoria Nuland with billions of NED money and closely
nannied by VP Joe Biden.

They are pro-Russian for good reasons.

Crimea is historically and culturally Russian. Yalta, a city by the
Black Sea, is in Crimea and is famously Russian for a variety of
reasons. Among them is Anton Chekhov, one of the famous Russian
writers of all time.

Another is the Yalta Conference. Recall that the host at the time was
Joseph Stalin. If the residents were real haters of Russia, Stalin
being there to host Roosevelt and Churcill in the twilight years of
WWII would have certainly been a strong reason for them to choose the
State Department's Vicki over Volodya in 2014. But no, when the
Russian soldiers went down the peninsula that very night, when locals
weren't sure whether they were one of their own, they said: "Do not
fear, we are with you!" Not one shot was fired in the process. The
rest is history.

Then we can also learn from the vast mountain of information available
on the internet that much of Russia's one-millenium history was about
struggles between the Russians and tartars, with most of the tartars
eventually getting absorbed into Russia.

Finally, the Kerch Strait bridge project shows great care from Russia
to Crimea. The importance Russia attached to Crimea is nothing to
sneer at. It is not an attitude of a colonialist or an occupier.

lo yeeOn

[lo yeeOn]

In article <egldub...@mid.individual.net>,

Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> wrote:

I think India was one of the non-aligned nations that was consistently
friendly to the USSR, so were many African countries.

lo yeeOn

[TT]

Not true.

> Crimea is historically and culturally Russian.

Certainly Ukrainian geographically.
Historically all over the map.

> Finally, the Kerch Strait bridge project shows great care from Russia
> to Crimea.

Nonsense

[*skriptis]

You're a first class dumbass.

You can "perhaps" criticize Russia's action from a anti-war & a
hippie stance and that's all. Are you a hippie? That's for teens
and drug addicts.

I thought you were more normal than that.

You can't even criticize Russia from a deluded leftist,
anti-imperialist stance, as their action, was done as a response
to Ukrainian coup and on their border. It concerns their country.
They haven't sailed to the other side of the world to conduct
that action. So it's not even an imperialism.


And one more thing. Aren't you ashamed of lying so much?

Overwhelming majority or Crimeans don't want to be in Russia? Are
you idiot or what?
It's like saying British people living in Gibraltar don't want to
be part of UK.

Russians are the majority there. You're suggesting Russians don't
want to live in Russia? You're a drug addict, no doubt.


Even most of the non Russians there prefer Russia as a stable and
more lawful country over failed Ukraine. Just as Puerto Rico
Latinos would rather be part of USA over Mexico, even though they
aren't Anglosaxons.


And what's that response to Russia building a bridge to Crimea?
You say nonsense?
Nonsense as in, you don't believe the bridge is being built or
what, the project is a nonsense to you?

You're a total wacko.

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 18/02/2017 11:50, *skriptis wrote:

> It's like saying British people living in Gibraltar don't want to
> be part of UK.

If they are British (about 13% of the population), then they are
citizens of the UK living in Gibraltar. The other 87% are not
citizens of the UK. Most (79%) are Gibraltarians.

The same is true of Brits living in countless countries.

Falkland Islanders all have British citizenship, about 59% are
ethnically regarded as Falkland Islanders, while another 20% are
of British origin. Others came from St Helena and Chile. There
are a few Argentines too.

[*skriptis]

Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:

Good. Tnx for all the details about territorial, state, ethnic and
other demographics.
I hope you do understand that wether it's the English, British,
Falklands, Gibraltar, UK or whatever it all boils down to London.


Those that I used as an example want to have London as their
metropolitan and military centre from which their fate is
determined. They don't want Berlin, Beijing, Moscow, Madrid or
Paris. They want London. Agreed?