Yes. Really. Using a word on you in the past does not invalidate my claim that I find it objectionable.
You didn't use it against me. You fail twice.
It is a fairly recent attitude change that I have gone through regarding the use of certain words and phrases and how those phrases are insensitive and wrong headed so your rebuttal is a failure, sir.
What a coincidence! It's a fairly recent attitude change I went through regarding the use of certain words and phrases to describe a woman who pushed for secrecy for programs that remove Constitutional protections simply because she was threatened with jail time otherwise.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
Kulaf wrote:Just curious....how exactly is she guilty of treason?
It depends on how you define selling political favors to a foreign power. Admittedly, Israel isn't a defined "enemy" so it's probably not, but stuff like that should put you away for a LONG time.
Kulaf wrote:Just curious....how exactly is she guilty of treason?
It depends on how you define selling political favors to a foreign power. Admittedly, Israel isn't a defined "enemy" so it's probably not, but stuff like that should put you away for a LONG time.
Dd
If said "agent" was known to her as an agent then there might be something to make of it. If he was only known to her as another lobyist for AIPAC then at most she would be looking at an ethics violation.
Kulaf wrote:If said "agent" was known to her as an agent then there might be something to make of it. If he was only known to her as another lobyist for AIPAC then at most she would be looking at an ethics violation.
I'm sure they could get her on some sort of espionage related thing if they tried. Mail fraud at the very least!
Kulaf wrote:If said "agent" was known to her as an agent then there might be something to make of it. If he was only known to her as another lobyist for AIPAC then at most she would be looking at an ethics violation.
I'm sure they could get her on some sort of espionage related thing if they tried. Mail fraud at the very least!
Dd
Well even the Pentagon official who passed the documents was not charged with spying nor treason:
Mr. Franklin's sentence, which included a fine of $10,000, was the first victory for the government in a case in which prosecutors have also indicted the two lobbyists with whom he shared classified information. The charges against Mr. Franklin and the two lobbyists are offenses under the Espionage Act, but none of the men have been accused of spying.
The Espionage act will still not change the meaning of treason in the US which is defined in article 3 section 3 of the US Constitution to be:
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.
Yeah - I was being overly dramatic. If there's not serious jail time for politicians selling their votes to foreign powers, there should be. I don't care if they "didn't know".
