NYT Responds to Trump

MichaelScarn · 2018-09-09T11:21:17.844Z

It’s sedition to discuss constitutional rights.

tnt · 2018-09-09T11:58:12.393Z

You are being hyperbolic to rationalize your lord and master’s rage.

Insulating your department from what you view as bad decisions is what department heads do every day all over the world.

tnt · 2018-09-09T11:59:37.435Z

Advisors disagreeing with the POTUS is not a conspiracy.

dantes · 2018-09-09T12:11:37.243Z

I doubt anyone wants that.

adroit · 2018-09-09T12:41:11.122Z

zantax:

by force

Force is a pre-req. Otherwise, one could argue that impeachment is sedition. It’s ridiculous.

Gravityspeak · 2018-09-09T13:05:08.933Z

Man! If only you people were this supportive of an investigation into attacks on or sovereignty by another nation, we’d be good to go!

zantax · 2018-09-09T13:05:28.509Z

tnt:

Advisors disagreeing with the POTUS is not a conspiracy.

Didn’t say it was.

CaughtInTheMiddle · 2018-09-09T14:08:15.582Z

Gravityspeak:

Man! If only you people were this supportive of an investigation into attacks on or sovereignty by another nation, we’d be good to go!

It’s not “technically, technically”.

swriddle · 2018-09-09T14:23:16.954Z

Like check her DNA? The only blond haired blue eye Native American I’ve ever seen.

Konssurvative1 · 2018-09-09T14:26:55.942Z

BY FORCE being the key to SEDITION.

zantax · 2018-09-09T14:36:51.266Z

Konssurvative1:

BY FORCE being the key to SEDITION.

Violence is not the only form of force, compulsion is also force. Exerting your authority to hinder or defy the law is a form of force.

zantax · 2018-09-09T14:41:34.667Z

Or we could go with this instead

LII / Legal Information Institute

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

US Code

Notes

prev | next

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

armycowboy · 2018-09-09T14:45:22.184Z

Your concern for a documented terrorist is noted. ■■■■ al-Awlaki.

CanadianJudo · 2018-09-09T14:48:54.061Z

nothing in the op-ed was illegal.

CanadianJudo · 2018-09-09T14:50:23.536Z

Its not illegal to try and direct the President into following a pathway of policy.

Konssurvative1 · 2018-09-09T15:07:00.946Z

Tell your self what you need to…thats not what the statute says. Maybe I could give you this if there were written threats in the OP ED. But there were none. There is no force being used.

Cynic · 2018-09-09T15:13:41.870Z

MichaelScarn · 2018-09-09T15:29:47.845Z

He picked the only Obama policy that Trump continued/beefed up as an example of something bad Obama did

madasheck · 2018-09-09T15:48:58.983Z

The excuses people are coming up with about the editorial are hilarious and are avoiding the big issue. It’s not just that you have someone like this in the White House. It’s WHY. This isn’t an isolated voice. But let’s forget about the Woodward book for a minute. You’ve had people talking about Trump’s incompetence before. But now you have professionals who are on the front line who can see the danger he can cause (danger that’s not fully known to us being that we’re not in security positions) speaking out. They wouldn’t be speaking out like this in an unprecedented op-ed if there wasn’t an immediate danger.

TheDoctorIsIn · 2018-09-09T15:49:52.769Z

Charges of “conspiracy” require an underlying criminal offense.