myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Treason

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9848

PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:36 pm    Post subject: Treason Reply with quote

Can anyone out there explain how this is not treason?

Congress passed, and Trump signed, H.R. 3364, which limits the authority of the President to relax sanctions against Russia. The vote was 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House, and the concern over tampering in the 2016 election was one of the root causes. Here is a summary of the provisions related to Russia:


Quote:
The Act provides for sanctions related to the following activities: (1) cyber security, (2) crude oil projects, (3) financial institutions, (4) corruption, (5) human rights abuses, (6) evasion of sanctions, (7) transactions with Russian defense or intelligence sectors, (Cool export pipelines, (9) privatization of state-owned assets by government officials, and (10) arms transfers to Syria. Under the Act, sanctions that were imposed primarily by executive orders under the Obama administration would require an act of Congress to be changed or removed. As a result, sanctions will not
be able to be adapted as swiftly in response to evolving geopolitical developments.

On August 2, 2017, President Trump signed into law the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act,” which imposes new
sanctions on Russia, North Korea and Iran and highlights the
continuing challenges that companies face in complying with the
constantly evolving sanctions landscape.

Under the new legislation, the president is required to submit for congressional review certain proposed actions to terminate or waive Russian sanctions. The Trump administration can apply for waivers if it certifies that certain conditions have been met. Such conditions include Russian progress on implementing the peace deal in the Ukraine known as the Minsk agreement and “significant” Russian efforts to “reduce the number and intensity of [its] cyber intrusions.”

The Trump administration obtained some changes to the legislation since its first passage by the House and Senate, including those sought by energy companies. For example, U.S. businesses can work with Russian entities on certain deepwater, shale and Arctic offshore projects so long as they do not involve a sanctioned individual or entity having an ownership stake of 33 percent or greater. Interestingly, this is a stricter threshold than many current sanctions that subject an entity to sanctions if 50 percent or more owned by a sanctioned party


Given the scope of Russian tampering, Congress essentially mandated further sanctions--but Trump refused. Never mind? https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16949878/trump-russia-sanction-list-oligarch-congress

From that article:

Quote:
The legislation almost unanimously passed both chambers, and it was clear that Congress would override a presidential veto. It was explicitly designed to make old sanctions against Russia permanent and pressure Trump to impose new ones. The bill forced Trump to impose costs on Putin for interfering in America’s democratic process and his interventions in Ukraine and Syria.

But Trump resented Congress’s move to box him in on Russia policy. The president slammed the legislation in a written signing statement, calling it “seriously flawed,” and said that he could “make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress.” Sean Kane, a former sanctions official at the Treasury Department, told me that most presidential administrations balk at Congress telling them whom and what to sanction — that’s power the White House likes to wield.

So Trump missed Monday’s deadline to impose the new sanctions. But the administration did do something else it was required to do: It released a list of 210 Russian leaders and billionaires with purported ties to Putin in order to indicate that the administration was watching them.



I could follow up with the Constitutional provisions that establish a role for Congress in foreign policy--but this would not be the only part of the Constitution about which Trump is unaware.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 4349
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know you're big on predictions, even though you have a terrible batting average, but inquiring minds need to know.
Tell us mac, when will Trump be charged with treason?

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 3273

PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Treason Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Can anyone out there explain how this is not treason?

Congress passed, and Trump signed, H.R. 3364, which limits the authority of the President to relax sanctions against Russia. The vote was 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House, and the concern over tampering in the 2016 election was one of the root causes. Here is a summary of the provisions related to Russia:


Quote:
The Act provides for sanctions related to the following activities: (1) cyber security, (2) crude oil projects, (3) financial institutions, (4) corruption, (5) human rights abuses, (6) evasion of sanctions, (7) transactions with Russian defense or intelligence sectors, (Cool export pipelines, (9) privatization of state-owned assets by government officials, and (10) arms transfers to Syria. Under the Act, sanctions that were imposed primarily by executive orders under the Obama administration would require an act of Congress to be changed or removed. As a result, sanctions will not
be able to be adapted as swiftly in response to evolving geopolitical developments.

On August 2, 2017, President Trump signed into law the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act,” which imposes new
sanctions on Russia, North Korea and Iran and highlights the
continuing challenges that companies face in complying with the
constantly evolving sanctions landscape.

Under the new legislation, the president is required to submit for congressional review certain proposed actions to terminate or waive Russian sanctions. The Trump administration can apply for waivers if it certifies that certain conditions have been met. Such conditions include Russian progress on implementing the peace deal in the Ukraine known as the Minsk agreement and “significant” Russian efforts to “reduce the number and intensity of [its] cyber intrusions.”

The Trump administration obtained some changes to the legislation since its first passage by the House and Senate, including those sought by energy companies. For example, U.S. businesses can work with Russian entities on certain deepwater, shale and Arctic offshore projects so long as they do not involve a sanctioned individual or entity having an ownership stake of 33 percent or greater. Interestingly, this is a stricter threshold than many current sanctions that subject an entity to sanctions if 50 percent or more owned by a sanctioned party


Given the scope of Russian tampering, Congress essentially mandated further sanctions--but Trump refused. Never mind? https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16949878/trump-russia-sanction-list-oligarch-congress

From that article:

Quote:
The legislation almost unanimously passed both chambers, and it was clear that Congress would override a presidential veto. It was explicitly designed to make old sanctions against Russia permanent and pressure Trump to impose new ones. The bill forced Trump to impose costs on Putin for interfering in America’s democratic process and his interventions in Ukraine and Syria.

But Trump resented Congress’s move to box him in on Russia policy. The president slammed the legislation in a written signing statement, calling it “seriously flawed,” and said that he could “make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress.” Sean Kane, a former sanctions official at the Treasury Department, told me that most presidential administrations balk at Congress telling them whom and what to sanction — that’s power the White House likes to wield.

So Trump missed Monday’s deadline to impose the new sanctions. But the administration did do something else it was required to do: It released a list of 210 Russian leaders and billionaires with purported ties to Putin in order to indicate that the administration was watching them.



I could follow up with the Constitutional provisions that establish a role for Congress in foreign policy--but this would not be the only part of the Constitution about which Trump is unaware.


Passed by nearly 100% in both house and then signed by President. Trump passes a bill that limits his power?

Meanwhile we killed some 200 Russians in Syria last week.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wsurfer



Joined: 17 Aug 2000
Posts: 221

PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Treason Reply with quote

mat-ty wrote:
mac wrote:
Can anyone out there explain how this is not treason?

Congress passed, and Trump signed, H.R. 3364, which limits the authority of the President to relax sanctions against Russia. The vote was 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House, and the concern over tampering in the 2016 election was one of the root causes. Here is a summary of the provisions related to Russia:


Quote:
The Act provides for sanctions related to the following activities: (1) cyber security, (2) crude oil projects, (3) financial institutions, (4) corruption, (5) human rights abuses, (6) evasion of sanctions, (7) transactions with Russian defense or intelligence sectors, (Cool export pipelines, (9) privatization of state-owned assets by government officials, and (10) arms transfers to Syria. Under the Act, sanctions that were imposed primarily by executive orders under the Obama administration would require an act of Congress to be changed or removed. As a result, sanctions will not
be able to be adapted as swiftly in response to evolving geopolitical developments.

On August 2, 2017, President Trump signed into law the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act,” which imposes new
sanctions on Russia, North Korea and Iran and highlights the
continuing challenges that companies face in complying with the
constantly evolving sanctions landscape.

Under the new legislation, the president is required to submit for congressional review certain proposed actions to terminate or waive Russian sanctions. The Trump administration can apply for waivers if it certifies that certain conditions have been met. Such conditions include Russian progress on implementing the peace deal in the Ukraine known as the Minsk agreement and “significant” Russian efforts to “reduce the number and intensity of [its] cyber intrusions.”

The Trump administration obtained some changes to the legislation since its first passage by the House and Senate, including those sought by energy companies. For example, U.S. businesses can work with Russian entities on certain deepwater, shale and Arctic offshore projects so long as they do not involve a sanctioned individual or entity having an ownership stake of 33 percent or greater. Interestingly, this is a stricter threshold than many current sanctions that subject an entity to sanctions if 50 percent or more owned by a sanctioned party


Given the scope of Russian tampering, Congress essentially mandated further sanctions--but Trump refused. Never mind? https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16949878/trump-russia-sanction-list-oligarch-congress

From that article:

Quote:
The legislation almost unanimously passed both chambers, and it was clear that Congress would override a presidential veto. It was explicitly designed to make old sanctions against Russia permanent and pressure Trump to impose new ones. The bill forced Trump to impose costs on Putin for interfering in America’s democratic process and his interventions in Ukraine and Syria.

But Trump resented Congress’s move to box him in on Russia policy. The president slammed the legislation in a written signing statement, calling it “seriously flawed,” and said that he could “make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress.” Sean Kane, a former sanctions official at the Treasury Department, told me that most presidential administrations balk at Congress telling them whom and what to sanction — that’s power the White House likes to wield.

So Trump missed Monday’s deadline to impose the new sanctions. But the administration did do something else it was required to do: It released a list of 210 Russian leaders and billionaires with purported ties to Putin in order to indicate that the administration was watching them.



I could follow up with the Constitutional provisions that establish a role for Congress in foreign policy--but this would not be the only part of the Constitution about which Trump is unaware.


Passed by nearly 100% in both house and then signed by President. Trump passes a bill that limits his power?

Meanwhile we killed some 200 Russians in Syria last week.


Mat-ty is still clueless Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9848

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Russians have dirt on the whole crime family. And none of them can get a security clearance. I’d like to see those FBI files.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jpbassman



Joined: 19 May 1998
Posts: 3244
Location: Leo

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since when is it treason to do business with the Russians? Are we at war with them? And how about that bitch you libtards voted for who approved the sale of Uranium to the Russians? Under your line of thinking shouldn't something be done about that? Wink
_________________
#Arrest44
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9848

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jpbassman wrote:
Since when is it treason to do business with the Russians? Are we at war with them? And how about that bitch you libtards voted for who approved the sale of Uranium to the Russians? Under your line of thinking shouldn't something be done about that? Wink


You seem to be getting even more senile. There is no crime associated with doing business with Russians. Conspiring with the Russian government’s representatives to throw an election is a different matter. It is a crime to take material benefit from foreign nationals for campaigns. Conspiring to do so with promises to relax sanctions is treason.

You might not come off as quite so stupid if you actually did a little research. It is not a crime to buy and sell uranium; there is a market for raw materials. It was the NRC, not the Department of State that ok’d the sale. State was only one of many votes in a unanimous decision. And so forth.

You brainwash yourself—and then double down with misogyny. No wonder you are a fan boy.

https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 5875
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jpbassman wrote:
Since when is it treason to do business with the Russians? Are we at war with them? And how about that bitch you libtards voted for who approved the sale of Uranium to the Russians? Under your line of thinking shouldn't something be done about that? Wink

JP...my friend, please do just a little bit of homework.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 2872

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jpbassman wrote:
Since when is it treason to do business with the Russians? Are we at war with them? And how about that bitch you libtards voted for who approved the sale of Uranium to the Russians? Under your line of thinking shouldn't something be done about that? Wink


Really? "Bitch"? Pretty much that negates your argument.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group