straightUp wrote:
Why on earth is the DNC spending money on these idiot law suits? They're suing Russia? I mean, I think it's pretty likely they were involved in efforts to influence our 2016 election, but seriously, on what grounds are you going to sue Russia?
We don't even know how much of a factor the Kremlin really was. A lot of what people are calling social media influence from Eastern Europe and Russia are actually private enterprises that are simply looking for click traffic. While America isn't their only target, we do have the largest supply of dollars in foolish hands and a lucrative industry in political outrage, especially conservative (according to an interview of two site owners from Macedonia). It's the perfect market for setting up sites to catch clicks. Many of these site owners don't even know enough English to understand what the articles are saying but they can read the web reports and they can see the reactions in terms of clicks, so they repost on their own sites. It just turns out that the more outrageous stories from conservative sources for some reason attract more visitors than any other category in the American market. (Health advice is actually the second most popular category.) There's literally no way to quantify the effects of Kremlin vs the effects of the free-market Internet. Suing Russia is just a dick move.
As for the suit against Trump... There's more to to make a case here because of the treason perspective, especially since we're talking about the presidency, but Muller is working through the investigation. I don't see why we can't just chill out and wait for him to complete the investigation BEFORE we break out the noose.
I'm very disappointed in the DNC about this. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Why on earth is the DNC spending money on these id... (
show quote)
"As for the suit against Trump... There's more to to make a case here because of the treason perspective, especially since we're talking about the presidency, but Muller is working through the investigation." Read the following and please tell me how you derive a
"treason perspective"Definition of treason
1: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
2: the betrayal of a trust : treachery
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
US Code
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.)
The Constitution narrowly defines treason and establishes a high bar for conviction. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,” Article Three states. “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.”
“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.”
In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses." In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).