We don't believe President Trump served his presidency well by meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. It was a summit without an agenda, and as far as we can tell achieved nothing concrete politically or strategically. His performance at the press conference deserves criticism.
That said, the hysterical response from the mainstream media, the Washington leftist power elite and the progressives that are the new de facto rulers of the Democratic Party was so extreme it makes one think they're losing it.
Following Trump's talk with Putin, lefty talking heads exploded with talk of "Treason."
Former CIA Director John Brennan, in particular, sounded like someone in need of intervention in his tweet: "Donald Trump's press performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???"
Coming from a man who himself once voted Communist and who as one of our top intelligence officials arguably undermined America's war on terror more than any single individual, that's pretty rich. But others were equally bad.
Charles Blow of The New York Times, under the redundant headline, "Trump, Treasonous Traitor", wrote: "Simply put, Trump is a traitor and may well be treasonous."
Not to be eclipsed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took his swipe: "A single, ominous question now hangs over the White House: what could possibly cause President Trump to put the interests of Russia over those of the United States?"
His counterpart in the House, Nancy Pelosi, said pretty much the same thing.
Already, a site on Amazon promises "unique treason bumperstickers" related to Trump.
And MSNBC asked pointedly: "Did Donald Trump Commit Treason?" But it wasn't the only media outlet to do so. Just the most blatant.
The talk of treason is not only extreme, it does a grave disservice to our Constitution, something very much at the fore of public discussion these days with the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice, Brett Kavanaugh, an ardent and learned constitutionalist.
Here's what the Constitution says about treason:
"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."
That's it. Is Trump "levying war" against the U.S.? No, that's absurd. Is he "adhering to (our) Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"? Again, clearly no, since we're not at war with Russia.
The left's argument that cyber-attacks directed by Russians against U.S. elections are the equivalent of war, again, falls short of any known definition.
While reprehensible, such attacks have been occurring for years with little or no response from successive administrations. If the suddenly bellicose Democrats really feel we are at war, they should go to Congress and declare one, as the Congress requires.
We'd ask them: What kind of war is this? When did it begin?
By the left's definition, we could impeach and try for treason any president that even dared to talk to someone who was unfriendly with us. But, really, the left knows this. They choose to ignore it, because by screaming "traitor, traitor, traitor" now, they've ratcheted up the hate quotient of their base for Trump. That's what they want.
Imagine if someone had called President Trump a "traitor" for talking to the Castro regime. The squealing by the left would be loud and long.
We believe the House Republicans' intelligence report, which came out in May and basically served as the template for Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller'scharges against 12 Russians for interfering with our election. It was correct: Russia did meddle in our election in 2016. It meddled in others, too. But it didn't play a deciding role in any vote.
But Trump is also right about one thing: Obama knew about the Russian meddling but did nothing about it until December of 2016, well after the election. He didn't think it mattered. Then to cover up for his mistake, he hit Russian with sanctions and expelled diplomats just as he was about to leave office. And he did it with the connivance of FBI and Justice Department officials.
They had done Hillary Clinton's dirty workon their investigation all along.
And during this time, late 2016, theDemocrats repeatedly refused to cooperate with a federal investigation. That's how important this alleged "treason" was to them.
Sorry, treason doesn't wash.
Treason: The New 'McCarthism'?
After decades of weakness, appeasement and shrieks of "McCarthyism" every time anyone in the GOP or a conservative criticized Democratic support for Soviet Russia or communism, the Democrats now have some nerve accusing Trump of treason.
A reminder to the treasonnauts: In talking to Putin, Trump was talking to someone who has an extensive nuclear arsenal, a large army, huge natural resources, extensive geographical influence, and a seat on the U.N. Security Council, with veto power. To not talk to him at all would be foolish and dangerous. Calling it treason is idiocy.
It's one thing to say Trump shouldn't meet with Putin because of a lack of substance, as we did above. Or it's bad timing. Fair criticism by a loyal opposition is always good.
But it's quite another to argue Trump's committed a heinous crime just for talking to another world leader. This crosses a line. It not only poisons America's political well, but it further divides the electorate and increases the likelihood of violence in coming elections — something far-left Democrats seem to relish as a way to gain power in the next election.
Will Americans be duped, or will they just "walk away?"
That said, the hysterical response from the mainstream media, the Washington leftist power elite and the progressives that are the new de facto rulers of the Democratic Party was so extreme it makes one think they're losing it.
Following Trump's talk with Putin, lefty talking heads exploded with talk of "Treason."
Former CIA Director John Brennan, in particular, sounded like someone in need of intervention in his tweet: "Donald Trump's press performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???"
Coming from a man who himself once voted Communist and who as one of our top intelligence officials arguably undermined America's war on terror more than any single individual, that's pretty rich. But others were equally bad.
Charles Blow of The New York Times, under the redundant headline, "Trump, Treasonous Traitor", wrote: "Simply put, Trump is a traitor and may well be treasonous."
Not to be eclipsed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took his swipe: "A single, ominous question now hangs over the White House: what could possibly cause President Trump to put the interests of Russia over those of the United States?"
His counterpart in the House, Nancy Pelosi, said pretty much the same thing.
Already, a site on Amazon promises "unique treason bumperstickers" related to Trump.
And MSNBC asked pointedly: "Did Donald Trump Commit Treason?" But it wasn't the only media outlet to do so. Just the most blatant.
The talk of treason is not only extreme, it does a grave disservice to our Constitution, something very much at the fore of public discussion these days with the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice, Brett Kavanaugh, an ardent and learned constitutionalist.
Here's what the Constitution says about treason:
"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."
That's it. Is Trump "levying war" against the U.S.? No, that's absurd. Is he "adhering to (our) Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"? Again, clearly no, since we're not at war with Russia.
The left's argument that cyber-attacks directed by Russians against U.S. elections are the equivalent of war, again, falls short of any known definition.
While reprehensible, such attacks have been occurring for years with little or no response from successive administrations. If the suddenly bellicose Democrats really feel we are at war, they should go to Congress and declare one, as the Congress requires.
We'd ask them: What kind of war is this? When did it begin?
By the left's definition, we could impeach and try for treason any president that even dared to talk to someone who was unfriendly with us. But, really, the left knows this. They choose to ignore it, because by screaming "traitor, traitor, traitor" now, they've ratcheted up the hate quotient of their base for Trump. That's what they want.
Imagine if someone had called President Trump a "traitor" for talking to the Castro regime. The squealing by the left would be loud and long.
We believe the House Republicans' intelligence report, which came out in May and basically served as the template for Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller'scharges against 12 Russians for interfering with our election. It was correct: Russia did meddle in our election in 2016. It meddled in others, too. But it didn't play a deciding role in any vote.
But Trump is also right about one thing: Obama knew about the Russian meddling but did nothing about it until December of 2016, well after the election. He didn't think it mattered. Then to cover up for his mistake, he hit Russian with sanctions and expelled diplomats just as he was about to leave office. And he did it with the connivance of FBI and Justice Department officials.
They had done Hillary Clinton's dirty workon their investigation all along.
And during this time, late 2016, theDemocrats repeatedly refused to cooperate with a federal investigation. That's how important this alleged "treason" was to them.
Sorry, treason doesn't wash.
Treason: The New 'McCarthism'?
After decades of weakness, appeasement and shrieks of "McCarthyism" every time anyone in the GOP or a conservative criticized Democratic support for Soviet Russia or communism, the Democrats now have some nerve accusing Trump of treason.
A reminder to the treasonnauts: In talking to Putin, Trump was talking to someone who has an extensive nuclear arsenal, a large army, huge natural resources, extensive geographical influence, and a seat on the U.N. Security Council, with veto power. To not talk to him at all would be foolish and dangerous. Calling it treason is idiocy.
It's one thing to say Trump shouldn't meet with Putin because of a lack of substance, as we did above. Or it's bad timing. Fair criticism by a loyal opposition is always good.
But it's quite another to argue Trump's committed a heinous crime just for talking to another world leader. This crosses a line. It not only poisons America's political well, but it further divides the electorate and increases the likelihood of violence in coming elections — something far-left Democrats seem to relish as a way to gain power in the next election.
Will Americans be duped, or will they just "walk away?"
