Has a US president ever sided with the enemy, before today?

[Karpatsky]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

I have to laugh

Please, tell me exactly how Russia is a direct enemy of the United States.

Their foreign policy directly seeks to undermine the American bloc and American power both by conventional and covert means. Is that so hard to understand?

[Badger]

John Tyler, James Buchanan, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan. Happens all the time.

When?

John Tyler joined the Confederacy

and Buchanan own VP armed the Confederacy and then became the Confederated Secretary of War.

But, I believe careful research will show that Buchanan's vice president wasn't Buchanan.

Tyler is the correct answer. And it shows just how unprecedented Trump's abject and Craven siding with the KGB over America's intelligent services for his own self protection truly is.

[Badger]

Obama was good friends with a terrorist sympathizer and went to an anti-American church for 20 years...does this count for anything?

STFU is truly the only response worthwhile for such an insanely stupid post.

[Badger]

OMG! The slaven lenus and cravenness of Republicans on this forum is even in Greater array than I could have possibly drained. There is an object willingness to accept a president siding with an enemy, which is pretty tough to describe any other country that doesn't make an all-out attempt, arguably successful, to subvert one of our elections, but we need the Supreme Court and tax cuts. Am I right?

What Collective slime you've all dragged yourself into.

[Associate Justice PiT]

OMG! The slaven lenus and cravenness of Republicans on this forum is even in Greater array than I could have possibly drained. There is an object willingness to accept a president siding with an enemy, which is pretty tough to describe any other country that doesn't make an all-out attempt, arguably successful, to subvert one of our elections, but we need the Supreme Court and tax cuts. Am I right?

What Collective slime you've all dragged yourself into.

     Since you are one of the few posters on the forum who isn't effectively illiterate on matters of the law, I would be interested in your take on this piece. It is an op-ed, but the author is a professor of constitutional law, so his opinion is better informed than most people's.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

I have to laugh

Please, tell me exactly how Russia is a direct enemy of the United States.

     It isn't, and the utterly facile nature of the responses here demonstrates that the opposition doesn't have a leg to stand on. Russia is not an enemy of the United States for Constitutional purposes. They are certainly not friends of ours and I am concerned by Trump's dismissal of concerns about them, but that does not make them an enemy.

They're trying to disrupt the most serious political alliance of the last century and they are working actively to undermine the faith of our citizens in our democratic process.

Holy mother of god you people are obtuse. You people are getting played so ing hard by the Russians. They know that half of the country would be too busy playing red vs. blue to take a well-concealed threat from them seriously and they're going to be able to do whatever they want as long as Trump is in charge and people like the blue avatars on this board enable him. They have you people hook, line and sinker.

[Badger]

OMG! The slaven lenus and cravenness of Republicans on this forum is even in Greater array than I could have possibly drained. There is an object willingness to accept a president siding with an enemy, which is pretty tough to describe any other country that doesn't make an all-out attempt, arguably successful, to subvert one of our elections, but we need the Supreme Court and tax cuts. Am I right?

What Collective slime you've all dragged yourself into.

     Since you are one of the few posters on the forum who isn't effectively illiterate on matters of the law, I would be interested in your take on this piece. It is an op-ed, but the author is a professor of constitutional law, so his opinion is better informed than most people's.

I can answer the question without even reading the article. The point is beyond whether or not Trump has strictly within the letter of the law so that he could be proven Beyond A Reasonable Doubt by 12 jurors guilty of treason. He is shown such a patent level of fundamental disloyalty and self-serving Over America on an ethical, diplomatic, and basic political basis that his right to remain as president is fundamentally and irrevocably proven sonder. The fact whether or not he could do life in prison or the death penalty from legal proceedings is frankly almost irrelevant.

The fact most right-wingers have descended to the point of saying Trump's Behavior might not, strictly construed, constitute the letter of the law of outright treason along the lines of Benedict Arnold, Aldrich Ames, Etc. Shows just how utterly farhi, and his supporters, have sunk.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

I have to laugh

Please, tell me exactly how Russia is a direct enemy of the United States.

     It isn't, and the utterly facile nature of the responses here demonstrates that the opposition doesn't have a leg to stand on. Russia is not an enemy of the United States for Constitutional purposes. They are certainly not friends of ours and I am concerned by Trump's dismissal of concerns about them, but that does not make them an enemy.

They're trying to disrupt the most serious political alliance of the last century and they are working actively to undermine the faith of our citizens in our democratic process.

Holy mother of god you people are obtuse. You people are getting played so ing hard by the Russians. They know that half of the country would be too busy playing red vs. blue to take a well-concealed threat from them seriously and they're going to be able to do whatever they want as long as Trump is in charge and people like the blue avatars on this board enable him. They have you people hook, line and sinker.

     I acknowledged above that Russia is a problem and that Trump's statements were concerning. I am saying that they do not qualify per Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, wherein the term "enemy" finds its most concrete application and people have been trying to make the case that they are for quite some time now.

[Joe Republic]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

I have to laugh

Please, tell me exactly how Russia is a direct enemy of the United States.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-13/u-s-strikes-said-to-kill-scores-of-russian-fighters-in-syria

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17020974/mueller-indictment-internet-research-agency


Vladimir Putin, a former KGB foreign intelligence Lt. Colonel, is certainly smart enough to send mercenaries to Syria instead of Russian military, and keeping his troll farm connections murky enough to avoid direct links.  But for anybody to claim that Russia is not currently attacking the United States, its interests, and its allies on a daily basis is either woefully uninformed, or trolling.  Which are you?

[Associate Justice PiT]

OMG! The slaven lenus and cravenness of Republicans on this forum is even in Greater array than I could have possibly drained. There is an object willingness to accept a president siding with an enemy, which is pretty tough to describe any other country that doesn't make an all-out attempt, arguably successful, to subvert one of our elections, but we need the Supreme Court and tax cuts. Am I right?

What Collective slime you've all dragged yourself into.

     Since you are one of the few posters on the forum who isn't effectively illiterate on matters of the law, I would be interested in your take on this piece. It is an op-ed, but the author is a professor of constitutional law, so his opinion is better informed than most people's.

I can answer the question without even reading the article. The point is beyond whether or not Trump has strictly within the letter of the law so that he could be proven Beyond A Reasonable Doubt by 12 jurors guilty of treason. He is shown such a patent level of fundamental disloyalty and self-serving Over America on an ethical, diplomatic, and basic political basis that his right to remain as president is fundamentally and irrevocably proven sonder. The fact whether or not he could do life in prison or the death penalty from legal proceedings is frankly almost irrelevant.

The fact most right-wingers have descended to the point of saying Trump's Behavior might not, strictly construed, constitute the letter of the law of outright treason along the lines of Benedict Arnold, Aldrich Ames, Etc. Shows just how utterly farhi, and his supporters, have sunk.

     I love how you said you can answer the question and then you didn't answer it. I guess I will have to look elsewhere for Constitutional Law expertise.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

I have to laugh

Please, tell me exactly how Russia is a direct enemy of the United States.

     It isn't, and the utterly facile nature of the responses here demonstrates that the opposition doesn't have a leg to stand on. Russia is not an enemy of the United States for Constitutional purposes. They are certainly not friends of ours and I am concerned by Trump's dismissal of concerns about them, but that does not make them an enemy.

They're trying to disrupt the most serious political alliance of the last century and they are working actively to undermine the faith of our citizens in our democratic process.

Holy mother of god you people are obtuse. You people are getting played so ing hard by the Russians. They know that half of the country would be too busy playing red vs. blue to take a well-concealed threat from them seriously and they're going to be able to do whatever they want as long as Trump is in charge and people like the blue avatars on this board enable him. They have you people hook, line and sinker.

     I acknowledged above that Russia is a problem and that Trump's statements were concerning. I am saying that they do not qualify per Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, wherein the term "enemy" finds its most concrete application and people have been trying to make the case that they are for quite some time now.

The Constitution provides no definition of what an "enemy" is. Russia has demonstrated it's willing to commit cyberwarfare on the democratic electoral process worldwide -- in the last five years they have tried to interfere with elections in much of Europe and of course in the United States. This is a level of nefariousness that the Founders were literally incapable of understanding and of course won't be mentioned in any founding document. If you want this entire conversation to revolve around some constitutional precedent for whether or not election hacking is "warfare" then you'll win on pedantry and nothing else.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

Christ, obviously America's allies mean nothing to the people who defend this sh**tshow. A British citizen died just last week after a Russian WMD attack on UK soil, and the US President today is happy to appear on the podium with the perpetrator and call him a 'friend'. When there was a terrorist attack on American soil NATO activated Article Five and 453 British soldiers died and over 2,000 were injured in Afghanistan to bring the perpetrators to justice. Where was that solidarity today? America can go f**k itself. The next time there is a terrorist attack which kills thousands of American citizens I hope Britain and the rest of NATO sit on their hands when America asks for help. Fool me once.

[Badger]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

I have to laugh

Please, tell me exactly how Russia is a direct enemy of the United States.

     It isn't, and the utterly facile nature of the responses here demonstrates that the opposition doesn't have a leg to stand on. Russia is not an enemy of the United States for Constitutional purposes. They are certainly not friends of ours and I am concerned by Trump's dismissal of concerns about them, but that does not make them an enemy.

They're trying to disrupt the most serious political alliance of the last century and they are working actively to undermine the faith of our citizens in our democratic process.

Holy mother of god you people are obtuse. You people are getting played so ing hard by the Russians. They know that half of the country would be too busy playing red vs. blue to take a well-concealed threat from them seriously and they're going to be able to do whatever they want as long as Trump is in charge and people like the blue avatars on this board enable him. They have you people hook, line and sinker.

     I acknowledged above that Russia is a problem and that Trump's statements were concerning. I am saying that they do not qualify per Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, wherein the term "enemy" finds its most concrete application and people have been trying to make the case that they are for quite some time now.

You may very well be right. My argument is that it is irrelevant as his conduct is grossly and patently far beneath even the widest latitude possible for any sitting president.

Surely whether or not a present meets the literal statutory and constitutional definition of treason cannot be the bar for Fitness to serve?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The Republicans in 1795 sure thought so.

[Badger]

OMG! The slaven lenus and cravenness of Republicans on this forum is even in Greater array than I could have possibly drained. There is an object willingness to accept a president siding with an enemy, which is pretty tough to describe any other country that doesn't make an all-out attempt, arguably successful, to subvert one of our elections, but we need the Supreme Court and tax cuts. Am I right?

What Collective slime you've all dragged yourself into.

     Since you are one of the few posters on the forum who isn't effectively illiterate on matters of the law, I would be interested in your take on this piece. It is an op-ed, but the author is a professor of constitutional law, so his opinion is better informed than most people's.

I can answer the question without even reading the article. The point is beyond whether or not Trump has strictly within the letter of the law so that he could be proven Beyond A Reasonable Doubt by 12 jurors guilty of treason. He is shown such a patent level of fundamental disloyalty and self-serving Over America on an ethical, diplomatic, and basic political basis that his right to remain as president is fundamentally and irrevocably proven sonder. The fact whether or not he could do life in prison or the death penalty from legal proceedings is frankly almost irrelevant.

The fact most right-wingers have descended to the point of saying Trump's Behavior might not, strictly construed, constitute the letter of the law of outright treason along the lines of Benedict Arnold, Aldrich Ames, Etc. Shows just how utterly farhi, and his supporters, have sunk.

     I love how you said you can answer the question and then you didn't answer it. I guess I will have to look elsewhere for Constitutional Law expertise.

Sorry to disappoint. I will actually read that article later on when it's not midnight and I'm just finishing up other work. But in terms of Trump's Fitness to serve, as I said in my previous post, whether or not he meets the statutory constitutional definition of treason Beyond A Reasonable Doubt is, to put it extremely mildly, not the bar to measure a President's continuing Fitness to serve. By any reasonable bar, he is utterly fallen short.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

I have to laugh

Please, tell me exactly how Russia is a direct enemy of the United States.

     It isn't, and the utterly facile nature of the responses here demonstrates that the opposition doesn't have a leg to stand on. Russia is not an enemy of the United States for Constitutional purposes. They are certainly not friends of ours and I am concerned by Trump's dismissal of concerns about them, but that does not make them an enemy.

They're trying to disrupt the most serious political alliance of the last century and they are working actively to undermine the faith of our citizens in our democratic process.

Holy mother of god you people are obtuse. You people are getting played so ing hard by the Russians. They know that half of the country would be too busy playing red vs. blue to take a well-concealed threat from them seriously and they're going to be able to do whatever they want as long as Trump is in charge and people like the blue avatars on this board enable him. They have you people hook, line and sinker.

     I acknowledged above that Russia is a problem and that Trump's statements were concerning. I am saying that they do not qualify per Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, wherein the term "enemy" finds its most concrete application and people have been trying to make the case that they are for quite some time now.

You may very well be right. My argument is that it is irrelevant as his conduct is grossly and patently far beneath even the widest latitude possible for any sitting president.

Surely whether or not a present meets the literal statutory and constitutional definition of treason cannot be the bar for Fitness to serve?

Agree 100%.

Any post from Republicans splitting hairs about constitutional merit or legal definitions on this issue is ass-covering, considering they support a President and enable a party apparatus who have shown contempt for the rule of law and for governing institutions in this country. Nobody should have any patience for pedantic arguments like these that try to exonerate despicable and treasonous (lowercase-t treasonous) behavior by technicality.

[Yellowhammer]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

Christ, obviously America's allies mean nothing to the people who defend this sh**tshow. A British citizen died just last week after a Russian WMD attack on UK soil, and the US President today is happy to appear on the podium with the perpetrator and call him a 'friend'. When there was a terrorist attack on American soil NATO activated Article Five and 453 British soldiers died and over 2,000 were injured in Afghanistan to bring the perpetrators to justice. Where was that solidarity today? America can go f**k itself. The next time there is a terrorist attack which kills thousands of American citizens I hope Britain and the rest of NATO sit on their hands when America asks for help. Fool me once.

NATO is largely obsolete, America doesn’t need your help.

[junior chįmp]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

Christ, obviously America's allies mean nothing to the people who defend this sh**tshow. A British citizen died just last week after a Russian WMD attack on UK soil, and the US President today is happy to appear on the podium with the perpetrator and call him a 'friend'. When there was a terrorist attack on American soil NATO activated Article Five and 453 British soldiers died and over 2,000 were injured in Afghanistan to bring the perpetrators to justice. Where was that solidarity today? America can go f**k itself. The next time there is a terrorist attack which kills thousands of American citizens I hope Britain and the rest of NATO sit on their hands when America asks for help. Fool me once.

NATO The GOP is largely obsolete, America doesn’t need your help.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

I have to laugh

Please, tell me exactly how Russia is a direct enemy of the United States.

     It isn't, and the utterly facile nature of the responses here demonstrates that the opposition doesn't have a leg to stand on. Russia is not an enemy of the United States for Constitutional purposes. They are certainly not friends of ours and I am concerned by Trump's dismissal of concerns about them, but that does not make them an enemy.

They're trying to disrupt the most serious political alliance of the last century and they are working actively to undermine the faith of our citizens in our democratic process.

Holy mother of god you people are obtuse. You people are getting played so ing hard by the Russians. They know that half of the country would be too busy playing red vs. blue to take a well-concealed threat from them seriously and they're going to be able to do whatever they want as long as Trump is in charge and people like the blue avatars on this board enable him. They have you people hook, line and sinker.

     I acknowledged above that Russia is a problem and that Trump's statements were concerning. I am saying that they do not qualify per Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, wherein the term "enemy" finds its most concrete application and people have been trying to make the case that they are for quite some time now.

You may very well be right. My argument is that it is irrelevant as his conduct is grossly and patently far beneath even the widest latitude possible for any sitting president.

Surely whether or not a present meets the literal statutory and constitutional definition of treason cannot be the bar for Fitness to serve?

     I see what you're saying, and it is certainly the case that a President can be impeached for other crimes besides treason. I made a rather unfair assumption that people were bringing up "enemy" as an appeal to Article III, Section 3 treason, which is certainly not the only sense in which it can be used.

     My initial reaction to this post was that clearly the bar for fitness to serve is whatever Congress says it is, as the scope of impeachable offenses lies at their sole discretion. That isn't an actual answer to your question, but it did make me think that it may have been a mistake on the part of the framers, since it turns impeachment into more of a political football and less of a serious legal process.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

I have to laugh

Please, tell me exactly how Russia is a direct enemy of the United States.

     It isn't, and the utterly facile nature of the responses here demonstrates that the opposition doesn't have a leg to stand on. Russia is not an enemy of the United States for Constitutional purposes. They are certainly not friends of ours and I am concerned by Trump's dismissal of concerns about them, but that does not make them an enemy.

They're trying to disrupt the most serious political alliance of the last century and they are working actively to undermine the faith of our citizens in our democratic process.

Holy mother of god you people are obtuse. You people are getting played so ing hard by the Russians. They know that half of the country would be too busy playing red vs. blue to take a well-concealed threat from them seriously and they're going to be able to do whatever they want as long as Trump is in charge and people like the blue avatars on this board enable him. They have you people hook, line and sinker.

     I acknowledged above that Russia is a problem and that Trump's statements were concerning. I am saying that they do not qualify per Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, wherein the term "enemy" finds its most concrete application and people have been trying to make the case that they are for quite some time now.

You may very well be right. My argument is that it is irrelevant as his conduct is grossly and patently far beneath even the widest latitude possible for any sitting president.

Surely whether or not a present meets the literal statutory and constitutional definition of treason cannot be the bar for Fitness to serve?

Agree 100%.

Any post from Republicans splitting hairs about constitutional merit or legal definitions on this issue is ass-covering, considering they support a President and enable a party apparatus who have shown contempt for the rule of law and for governing institutions in this country. Nobody should have any patience for pedantic arguments like these that try to exonerate despicable and treasonous (lowercase-t treasonous) behavior by technicality.

     I would complain about your assumption of bad faith on my part, but then I remember I did the same to you, so I pretty much deserve it.

[Badger]

The Republicans in 1795 sure thought so.

And they were without basis. Surely you see just a teensy distinction to our present situation?

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

I have to laugh

Please, tell me exactly how Russia is a direct enemy of the United States.

     It isn't, and the utterly facile nature of the responses here demonstrates that the opposition doesn't have a leg to stand on. Russia is not an enemy of the United States for Constitutional purposes. They are certainly not friends of ours and I am concerned by Trump's dismissal of concerns about them, but that does not make them an enemy.

They're trying to disrupt the most serious political alliance of the last century and they are working actively to undermine the faith of our citizens in our democratic process.

Holy mother of god you people are obtuse. You people are getting played so ing hard by the Russians. They know that half of the country would be too busy playing red vs. blue to take a well-concealed threat from them seriously and they're going to be able to do whatever they want as long as Trump is in charge and people like the blue avatars on this board enable him. They have you people hook, line and sinker.

     I acknowledged above that Russia is a problem and that Trump's statements were concerning. I am saying that they do not qualify per Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, wherein the term "enemy" finds its most concrete application and people have been trying to make the case that they are for quite some time now.

You may very well be right. My argument is that it is irrelevant as his conduct is grossly and patently far beneath even the widest latitude possible for any sitting president.

Surely whether or not a present meets the literal statutory and constitutional definition of treason cannot be the bar for Fitness to serve?

Agree 100%.

Any post from Republicans splitting hairs about constitutional merit or legal definitions on this issue is ass-covering, considering they support a President and enable a party apparatus who have shown contempt for the rule of law and for governing institutions in this country. Nobody should have any patience for pedantic arguments like these that try to exonerate despicable and treasonous (lowercase-t treasonous) behavior by technicality.

     I would complain about your assumption of bad faith on my part, but then I remember I did the same to you, so I pretty much deserve it.

But it's not bad faith. I think you (in contrast to most of this board) are (mostly) sincere in your beliefs, but one of two things is happening. Either you are subconsciously having your political identity activated and are using whatever reasoning you can grasp (selective adherence to "rule of law") for to justify it, or you are being naive and prioritizing technical definitions which are not fully appropriate here over common sense. Even if I don't agree with you all the time, I have enough respect for you (singular you, not most of this board) to think the latter instead of the former.

I'm sympathetic to non-hackish Republicans (on this site and in general) because I can't imagine what it's like to see an institution (in this case a political institution) that you identify and agree with so strongly turn out to be so rotten. I'd like to think that if the roles were reversed I'd be able to snap out of my primal instincts and stop supporting the Democratic party but I have no way to know that unless it happens. But for god's sake, we aren't disagreeing over tax policy here. We're talking about a foreign country literally trying to influence our own elections for it's own benefit (and to our detriment), and not only getting away with it, but having our most powerful representative go out of his way to be deferential in the face of all factual counterevidence. That's why I don't care about hair-splitting over whether or not Hamilton would have thought Vladimir Putin was an enemy of the United States.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Russia got dirt on Clinton, and that is different from colluding with enemy to hack voting machines.

But, you can go back to 60's was Warren colluding with Russia when he ruled that Oswald was the lone gunman. It was a conspiracy story.

The Dems are gonna make gains based on Russia, but a full blown wave?

[junior chįmp]

Obama was good friends with a terrorist sympathizer and went to an anti-American church for 20 years...does this count for anything?

I find it quite interesting that Republicans can pal around with people like Jerry fatass Falwell who said America deserved 9/11 or Trump being endorsed by people like Louis Farrakhan but everyone else must have an alibi for their religious beliefs.

[Reaganfan]

Russia is not our enemy.