# American traitors



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

A traitor is someone who commits treason against their country. Treason is defined as: "the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance ..."

The USA has a proud democratic tradition, along with Constitution, and a series of laws which define the election process. Elected officials have a duty to serve the country and in fact, senators and presidents take an oath of allegiance to the USA.

The election is over and the Electoral College has voted. The American system now requires the government to certify the election results, described in this article.

Trump is fighting this process and wants to reject the results of the legal vote. Therefore, Trump is a traitor to the USA. News came out on Saturday that other traitors have joined Trump's attempt to overthrow the government. These traitors include Ted Cruz and 11 other Republicans.

*In other words, 23% of Republican Senators are traitors to the United States of America.*

Also remember, there were 126 Republicans in total who tried to throw out the election results. That shows just how widespread this is. We're not talking about just a handful of Republicans.

The media is dismissing all of this as a stunt, arguing that it can't possibly work. But that misses the more important point: whether or not it's successful, these are elected officials who took an oath to the USA, and yet, are actively working to overthrow the government.

The Republican Party is no longer a legitimate political party.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Looks to me like a legal and legitimate effort to correct what they believe to be a fraudulent election. Whether they are right or wrong they have the right to seek redress from the courts.
If you think that is treason what do you make of the efforts to impeach a duly elected President for nothing, or make baseless accusations of Russian collusion with no evidence which Trump has been putting up with for 4 years?
You might also recall that the Democrats challenged the vote in 2001, 2005 and 2017 which by your logic means both parties are traitorous and illegitimate.








Remember when the Democrats challenged the electoral vote count in 3 elections over 20 years?


What do 2001, 2005, and 2017 have in common? We inaugurated three GOP presidents, and Democrats challenged their electoral vote each time. Yes, three for two, or three times for the last two GOP presidents sworn in. The ...




www.americanthinker.com


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump isn't clinging desperately to power because he wants the job.

Trump cares about self glorification, fleecing his supporters for badly needed cash, and avoiding facing the courts after he loses Presidential immunity.

Trump must be terrified of what awaits him.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> A traitor is someone who commits treason against their country. Treason is defined as: "the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance ..."
> 
> The USA has a proud democratic tradition, along with Constitution, and a series of laws which define the election process. Elected officials have a duty to serve the country and in fact, senators and presidents take an oath of allegiance to the USA.
> 
> ...


Demanding an investigation isn't "treason".
It's stupid, a waste of time, and unlikely to find anything of significance, but as long as they're operating within their legal authority, it's no more treasonous than voting someone out of office.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Trying to get officials to overturn the election result and install Trump is not just 'investigating'. They don't actually want an investigation, they want Trump to be president, the people be damned.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Breaking news..........Trump is on audio tape threatening and pleading with Georgia's Secretary of State to help him overturn the Presidential election.

Some of the 1 hour of tape has been released........more to follow.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> Trump isn't clinging desperately to power because he wants the job.
> 
> Trump cares about self glorification, fleecing his supporters for badly needed cash, and avoiding facing the courts after he loses Presidential immunity.
> *
> Trump must be terrified of what awaits him.*


 ... the bunkers ... the bunkers will have to be used, especially after January 20th.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

sags said:


> has been released.


By whom? there are prob equal amount of dirt on both grandpas (“president to be” inclusive). Don’t Americans have younger politicians? I mean, he is 78 years old, just get retired (like fifteen years ago and enjoy your life).


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

Ukrainiandude said:


> ...Don’t Americans have younger politicians? I mean, he is 78 years old, just get retired (like fifteen years ago and enjoy your life).


Yes they do but Biden was the one most likely to defeat Trump.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

And Biden has the most experience to get the US back on track.


----------



## MK7GTI (Mar 4, 2019)

Tostig said:


> Yes they do but Biden was the one most likely to defeat Trump.


You don't think Tulsi Gabbard would have had a chance?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Trying to get officials to overturn the election result and install Trump is not just 'investigating'. They don't actually want an investigation, they want Trump to be president, the people be damned.


Of course, they're trying everything they can to stop President Harris.



MK7GTI said:


> You don't think Tulsi Gabbard would have had a chance?


She would have, but the democrats wanted Harris.

Really this whole thing is silly, but it's the same political games they ALL play.
I don't think they should, but that's the game.

Honestly I think they should be moving on and laying groundwork to have more influence under a Biden administration, but that might be what they're doing. Remember, they're playing to their voters just like every other politician.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Trying to get officials to overturn the election result and install Trump is not just 'investigating'. They don't actually want an investigation, they want Trump to be president, the people be damned.


The election result was already thoroughly investigated and went through court challenges. There were even recounts. All of those checks are done - the election was legitimate.

Trump's leaked phone call is horrendous. Trump talks like a mob boss and commands the Secretary of State to manipulate the election results in his favour. Unbelievable!

Pure corruption.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Looks to me like a legal and legitimate effort to correct what they believe to be a fraudulent election. Whether they are right or wrong they have the right to seek redress from the courts ....


There's been something like sixty court cases filed and most have been dismissed by a range of Democrat and Republican judges.

From what I've read, there is not going to be a court involved - just the House and Senate.

I agree it's not being a traitor but it's not seeking redress in the courts either.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> ... Honestly I think they should be moving on and laying groundwork to have more influence under a Biden administration, but that might be what they're doing. Remember, they're playing to their voters just like every other politician.


It seems more about getting the Republican to show themselves as loyal to Trump or someone for the PAC fund to target.

With the House and Senate controlled by different parties, it seems doubtful that there would be enough agreement to change anything. Or maybe I've missed something about how the objections, separate sessions and voting will happen. 

Cheers


----------



## I am the Walrus (Jul 9, 2018)

Perfect call 2.0 la la la lala la la


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> The election result was already thoroughly investigated and went through court challenges. There were even recounts. All of those checks are done - the election was legitimate.
> 
> Trump's leaked phone call is horrendous. Trump talks like a mob boss and commands the Secretary of State to manipulate the election results in his favour. Unbelievable!
> 
> Pure corruption.


Yeah, he was supposed to strongarm the election BEFORE they cast the votes.

It's just poor planning from a first time politician.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Some how Republicans won their own elections on the same ballots as Biden won the election.

They don't even try to explain that. Thus far the so called "witnesses" have been weirdos, drunks, and crackpots.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Yeah, he was supposed to strongarm the election BEFORE they cast the votes.
> 
> *It's just poor planning from a first time politician.*


 ... yep, a first time politician sitting on the throne for the past 4 years.

I waiting to see the "show" / military-removal of this first time politician at midnight of January 20th, 2021.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... yep, a first time politician sitting on the throne for the past 4 years.
> 
> I waiting to see the "show" / military-removal of this first time politician at midnight of January 20th, 2021.


What is with you people and your desired for an armed coup?
Like really can't you just follow the law and wait for Biden to take office?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> What is with you people and your desired for an armed coup?
> Like really can't you just follow the law and wait for Biden to take office?


 ... there you go again ... twisting and spinning someone else post.

Who is desiring an armed coup? My simple question(s) to you - what if the "gracious sore-loser-law-abiding" Mr. ex-President Trump does not actually "physically leave" the WH after January 20, 2021? What do you do then?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump tried 18 times to arrange a phone call with the Republicans in Georgia, just so he could threaten, cajole, whine, cry, and beg them to "find" ballots to overturn the results.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... there you go again ... twisting and spinning someone else post.
> 
> Who is desiring an armed coup? My simple question(s) to you - what if the "gracious sore-loser-law-abiding" Mr. ex-President Trump does not actually "physically leave" the WH after January 20, 2021? What do you do then?


You do, you literally called for using military to remove him while he is president. Did you even read your post?



Beaver101 said:


> I waiting to see the "show" / military-removal of this first time politician at midnight of January 20th, 2021.


After Biden is sworn in and Trump is no longer President, yes he should leave, and I'm all for any required force to do so.
I absolutely do not approve of using the military, police or any other ILLEGAL form of force to remove him while he is in office.
There remain a number of legal means to immediately remove Trump if required. You're the one calling for illegal removal.

Interesting that the lefties are the ones endorsing treason and calling for criminal acts.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> You do, you literally called for using military to remove him while he is president. Did you even read your post?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 .. I said "*after*" January 20th, 2021,* not "before*" as you're re-twisting again "t_o remove him __while he is in office_".

And are you so sure that he WILL leave other than "_yes he should leave and I'm all for required force to do so_"? And if you're not so sure that he WILL (not should) leave, and you're all for the use of force ... military, police, etc. ... then what's so illegal about that other than your twisting someone else's post *again *... or perhaps intentionally misinterpreting someone else post first.

And then there you go *again* with a triple twisting and blatant accusation of "_Interesting that the lefties are the ones endorsing treason and calling for criminal act." _ when it's clearly the opposite.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> You do, you literally called for using military to remove him while he is president. Did you even read your post?
> After Biden is sworn in and Trump is no longer President, yes he should leave, and I'm all for any required force to do so.


Perhaps you should re-read the post as well?

My understanding is that the inauguration is around noon on Jan 20th where traditionally, the new president moves in at about 3:30pm.
The post was talking about midnight so Biden would have be sworn in for about twelve hours, contrary to the claim of a sitting president being unlawfully removed.




MrMatt said:


> ... I absolutely do not approve of using the military, police or any other ILLEGAL form of force to remove him while he is in office.
> There remain a number of legal means to immediately remove Trump if required. You're the one calling for illegal removal.


So essentially it's the Secret Service that would be tasked with removing an outgoing president that is hanging on?


Cheers


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> Perhaps you should re-read the post as well?
> 
> My understanding is that the inauguration is around noon on Jan 20th where traditionally, the new president moves in at about 3:30pm.
> The post was talking about midnight so Biden would have be sworn in for about twelve hours, contrary to the claim of a sitting president being unlawfully removed.
> ...


I completely agree.
I'ts simply that midnight Jan 20 is 12 hours before Biden takes office.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump may be President until noon on January 20, but the White House belongs to the people........not Trump or any President.

Trump can remain as President but must vacate the White House before Jan 20 so the incoming administration are in place and ready to govern.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Most people I know use "midnight" as twelve hours after Biden takes office. 


Cheers


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> Most people I know use "midnight" as twelve hours after Biden takes office.
> 
> 
> Cheers


That's not how I read it, and doesn't make sense in context.
I don't know why you'd support letting him sit around for some 12 hours after he is out of office though, seems pretty arbitrary.
But I'll accept that perhaps you're not advocating illegally removing president, you just happen to be incredibly eager to see Trump out of office. (so eager that you'll wait 12 hours to evict him?)


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

It will all be over on Jan 20. Biden will be sworn in.

Trump, Trump family members, and some of Trumps business concerns will be facing some very serious and very consequential state tax, fraud and criminal actions. Creditors will be zeroing in on their lones. 

Trump has many, many good reasons to fear his going forward post Jan 20 life. I believe that is is the real crux of the issue.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> That's not how I read it, and doesn't make sense in context.
> I don't know why you'd support letting him sit around for some 12 hours after he is out of office though, seems pretty arbitrary ...


You'd have to ask Beaver101 as I'm thinking whomever the legal authority was would be working on it by 3pm or so, if not earlier.

Which reminds me - was my guess of the Secret Service correct?




MrMatt said:


> ... But I'll accept that perhaps you're not advocating illegally removing president, you just happen to be incredibly eager to see Trump out of office. (so eager that you'll wait 12 hours to evict him?)


 Got it ... reading things differently and asking questions = knowing what illegal or legal actions I'm in favour of.


Cheers


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

They should plan on how to remove a former president days/weeks in advance.
Wait till 3pm? I'm sure Biden will want him out immediately.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> They should plan on how to remove a former president days/weeks in advance.
> Wait till 3pm? I'm sure Biden will want him out immediately.


 ... of course, "they" know how to remove a former president ahead of time.

But then your logic (or trying to make sense) of his "leaving (on his own)" is the same - the belief that he'll leave (and ever so gracefully) because he's telling the truth as you would believed.

I think Money#### politely said it best in one of his post (can't find it atm) .. why can't Mr. Trump get on with it and start his WH evacuation ... instead of wasting his fellow citizens' time and $$$ with his continual antics ...


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... of course, "they" know how to remove a former president ahead of time.
> 
> But then your logic (or trying to make sense) of his "leaving (on his own)" is the same - the belief that he'll leave (and ever so gracefully) because he's telling the truth as you would believed.
> 
> I think Money#### politely said it best in one of his post (can't find it atm) .. why can't Mr. Trump get on with it and start his WH evacuation ... instead of wasting his fellow citizens' time and $$$ with his continual antics ...


Quick answers
1. He's not a "quitter", he keeps going and going no matter what, it's how he got where he is today, despite being a massive failure so many times in so many ways. It's part of his personality. 

2. He's fighting against a horrible incoming administration, and it is his duty to protect Americans and he will stop at nothing to protect them.
3. Cynically he's scared of legal consequences for his actions once he's no longer president. I think that's doubtful, like most powerful narcisists, they honestly don't think laws and consequences are for them.


----------



## Benting (Dec 21, 2016)

[QUOTE="MrMatt, post: 2115720, member: 42812"

2. He's fighting against a horrible incoming administration, and it is his duty to protect Americans and he will stop at nothing to protect them.
[/QUOTE]

???


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Benting said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> > 2. He's fighting against a horrible incoming administration, and it is his duty to protect Americans and he will stop at nothing to protect them.
> ...


I see two motivations (2& 3) I think they're both somewhat crazy, but this whole situation is.
Point 2, which is the one you quoted.
Donald Trump sees how bad the new incoming administration is, and is going to use every possible tool to stop them.
I think he's gone too far, but when you're fighting for the future of your country, how far should you go?

Imagine if Trump runs in 2024, how much pressure will there be for Biden to stop him?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Biden will live at the White House after Jan 20....and Trump will be living somewhere else. I hope the food is up to Trump's culinary standards.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> I see two motivations (2& 3) I think they're both somewhat crazy, but this whole situation is.
> Point 2, which is the one you quoted.
> Donald Trump sees how bad the new incoming administration is, and is going to use every possible tool to stop them.
> I think he's gone too far, but when you're fighting for the future of your country, how far should you go?
> ...


It's normally called an election campaign and it's over. Doing anything else has been practiced in other countries we normally don't associate with a free and liberal democracy.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> Biden will live at the White House after Jan 20....and Trump will be living somewhere else.
> 
> View attachment 21059


 ... LMAO ... where did you get the pic of this beautiful suite? Oh my, the admiration of the shirtless one is on full display ... I'm gonna faint.

Added: Eeewww on that meal.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Tostig said:


> It's normally called an election campaign and it's over. Doing anything else has been practiced in other countries we normally don't associate with a free and liberal democracy.


Yes, but the people who voted Trump want someone who will fight, no matter what.
That's who they elected, and that's who they got.

It's a good thing that the US has separation of powers (and term limits). 


Finally, US elections are a mess, everyone knows it.
Of course nobody has the first idea how to fix it, and there isn't political will to fix them.
Even if they wanted to fix the problems with elections, they consistently push for solutions that they feel politically advantage them.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> They should plan on how to remove a former president days/weeks in advance.
> Wait till 3pm? I'm sure Biden will want him out immediately.


There's planning in advance, which the reluctant to leave in power president can ignore or order to be skipped. And there's whatever point the legal authorities can ignore what the former president says and can use force.

With the constitution saying noon - that would seem to be earliest. 
One would think that there would be some leeway to avoid force but who knows?


IAC, I take it from the "I agree completely" that it would be the Secret Service with the task?


Cheers


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

He’s leaving the day before. And if he isn’t, who cares. Can we drop this Until Jan 20









Could Donald Trump be planning to snub Joe Biden with trip to Scotland?


Prestwick Airport has been told to expect the arrival of a US military Boeing 757 aircraft which has been occasionally used by Mr Trump.




www.heraldscotland.com


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> There's planning in advance, which the reluctant to leave in power president can ignore or order to be skipped. And there's whatever point the legal authorities can ignore what the former president says and can use force.
> 
> With the constitution saying noon - that would seem to be earliest.
> One would think that there would be some leeway to avoid force but who knows?
> ...


The Secret service would be appropriate, since they're responsible for the personal security of both the President and former President.
They're also responsible for the security of the White house, but the physical location of a former President that doesn't really matter.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yup........looks like Trump is going on the lam.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

sags said:


> Yup........looks like Trump is going on the lam.


I wonder if that leaked phone conversation between the Georgian election official and Trump would change anything with the Republicans planning to sabotage the Electoral Vote confirmation? They're not that stupid to believe the election was fraudulent. But they could be that corrupt to overthrow the election just because they want to.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Tostig said:


> I wonder if that leaked phone conversation between the Georgian election official and Trump would change anything with the Republicans planning to sabotage the Electoral Vote confirmation? They're not that stupid to believe the election was fraudulent. But they could be that corrupt to overthrow the election just because they want to.


The phone conversation won't change anything. Note that even more senators today, than before, plan to dispute the election results. These people (the Republicans trying to reject the election results) have no sense of morality, no values, no respect for their country.

As you point out, they aren't so stupid to really believe the vote was invalid.

This is a deliberate attempt to overturn a democratic election. These various Republican politicians (over a hundred of them) are violating the oath they've taken to the country; it's very serious.

I think they should be permanently banned from public politics for the rest of their lives. Trying to overturn democracy disqualifies someone from being a legitimate politician. At least, in a civilized country. The kind of thing the Republicans are doing now is the norm in dictatorships and s***hole countries.

Maybe that's what we're really seeing. A descent of America as it becomes a third-world country, unable to even maintain basic democratic procedures any more.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Land Of the free! You can do anything you want, where you want, when you want.

except you can‘t be President for more than 8 years, you need to be 35 years, old, naturalized citizen.
I wonder if term limits actually have the opposite effect. What if Regan or Obama could run again? 
I‘m reminded again of an episode of the West Wing where a new country is attempting to copy the US presidential republic systems......and the White House Communications director tells him that the US system is the worst and they should choose a parliamentary system.

the almighty ”Framers” didn’t consider political parties much. I wonder if a real 3rd party would help, or would it create more divisions. 

the country is a mess and is definitely on the downward slope. However, their economic power will mask things for awhile, bjt the decline is evident and inevitable......all great powers have expiry dates.....they’ve had a good 100-150 years


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> The phone conversation won't change anything. Note that even more senators today, than before, plan to dispute the election results. These people (the Republicans trying to reject the election results) have no sense of morality, no values, no respect for their country.
> 
> As you point out, they aren't so stupid to really believe the vote was invalid.
> 
> ...


It isn't that simple, and you know it.

There absolutely are legitimate concerns with the last election, but none of it can be addressed now.

I'm not saying that Trump won, I think he should have conceeded, and these games are bad.

However the laws and powers were democratically given to these people. 
The real question is how much power do you want to give to "government".

All you big government types are nuts if you think these elected jokers are deserving of the massive power we've given them.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> *He’s leaving the day before. And if he isn’t, who cares.* Can we drop this Until Jan 20
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 ... that would be disappointing ... for his supporters. What? No new reality show of "The New Dump West Wing" .


----------

