By Nathan Barton
The more I hear the rhetoric of the Democratic candidates for Massa (POTUS), the Congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media, the more convinced I am that they are indeed pushing for a coup.
Yes, The Donald is a disaster as POTUS. He is immoral, mercurial, and a loose cannon. He terrifies people. Including a good many foreigners.
But…
…how is that different from Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II? Or Carter, Clinton, or Obummer? Well, he isn’t a politician, really. Not a “professional” one, at least. He isn’t either a “conservative” or a “liberal.” He wasn’t part of the deep state. He had no public service experience and no military experience. But the only real difference is in degree, not kind in how he runs the country and treats the world around us.
But the degree of hatred and fear is far greater than exhibited against any of the past half-dozen POTUS. Perhaps even greater than that which Lincoln enjoyed.
And the direct (and indirect) action against him is staggering. It began when he went from being a clownish wannabe candidate and guaranteed ticket to the White House for Hillary, to a winner. Well before he took office. Since then, we’ve witnessed attempt after attempt to tear him down.
This latest is just more of the same. And with far less substance for the accusations levied against him. Worse, if these supposed actions (some of which do not seem to have actually been taken by Trump) are impeachable offenses, every president since Teddy Roosevelt should have been impeached. And convicted by the Senate. American presidents, for the entire 20th Century and the last twenty years, have made it a routine matter to intimidate foreign leaders. To say nothing of every leader of one of the Fifty States, and Congress as a whole and individually.
The insane nature of these accusations is staggering. And I see no potential for the situation to get any better. Indeed, I think we can expect more insane accusations being made on nearly a daily basis.
So what is next? They are already accusing Trump of promoting violence in internal (FedGov) politics and threatening a civil war. Just as he has been accused of being a racist, a sexist, an evil nationalist, and a fascist.
There are people on both the left and right corners of the political diamond (see Advocates for Self Government) who are willing and able to commit violence for political ends. (Individual and informal group violence, not the organized violence of the state.) Trumpistas and never-Trumpers have both been reported for attacking their political foes physically. They have attacked, slapped, beaten, even maimed and killed.
But it seems to me that the so-called left: the regressives, the Tranzis, the socialists, Antifa, so-called anarchists, do a lot more of the violence, and the threatening. But there is another group, as well: the deep state, which survives and gains and keeps power, by violent means. At virtually all levels: from kidnapping (arrest and imprisonment) to indiscriminate rains of missiles, shells, and bombs. Killing and taking the innocent along with those (supposedly) guilty of doing what the deep state doesn’t want done.
And I expect violence to increase rapidly. Not just of the “left” but by the right as well. Still, I think the “left” will lead the way.
So what can happen? The most obvious is an assassination, or at least attempts to do so. The only question might be if it is to be out in the open or disguised as something else: a traffic accident, a plane crash, or some convenient illness or ailment.
For an open (traditional) political assassination, who would do the deed? A disgruntled officeseeker? A foreign dupe? An insane, drug-drenched youth? A PTSD-ridden vet? A radicalized immigrant? This would obviously be critical, as who is blamed (or framed) for the killing (even the attempt) will frame (pun intended) the aftermath.
But there are more ways. Assuming that impeachment will hit a brick wall in the Senate, why even try in the House? (I am not convinced that the impeachment movement is totally unable to suborn, persuade, or blackmail the 20 GOP Senators needed, however.) Clearly to build more support, more extreme passions in their followers and win over the undecided. To motivate their base to even greater efforts. (Which could, in turn, lead to assassination attempts.)
Or to set the stage for more. Although the Constitution requires a supermajority of Senators to convict, what if he is NOT convicted, but the vote is 52-48 or 54-46? A majority, but not the mandated supermajority? “Democracy” demands he be punished anyway, and pressured to resign. After all, is that not the same argument that Hillary Clinton just used to say that she beat Trump in 2016?
So perhaps that would just set the stage for something very outrageous by American standards, if not unknown around the world and through history. What if Congress (or at least the House) went on strike? Adjourned from doing the “People’s Business” in supposed cahoots with a tyrant (Trump). What if the Democratic Party decised to boycott the 2020 elections? Or what about a purge of the House – or for that matter, the Senate? It has been done in other countries. And with the aid of deep state puppetmasters and a few GOP types, it could happen here.
Especially if the sacred tenets of “democracy” are invoked? The idea that legality and morality and everything else is decided by a vote of 50.00000001 to 49.99999999? Of whatever percentage of people (or representatives) actually vote out of the population or membership?
Would that succeed? I strongly doubt it. But what it could easily lead to is actual civil war. A war – violent, to-the-death combat – for control of the FedGov (and incidentally for many of the states.
Is that what the regressives (and the neo-cons) and the deep state and the media want?
I dunno. What do you think?
The Price of Liberty 
Nothng will happen to Trump, they will go through the motions just like Clinton, but they will get a lot of news coverage and that is what they want. The DINO’s will drag it up until the summer of 2020 and then it dies.
LikeLike
I hope that you are right. However, their loathing for Trump seems to be growing more extreme.
LikeLike
Perhaps more precise is it is not their loathing but their attempts which have become more severe. They’re not shooting blanks yet they continue to miss. Like an ignored impudent child they continue to ratchet upwards until their antics result in the intended goal.
But just what is their goal? To remove a president could be, perhaps. I think it is more than that. It is to exact complete control over all the people. As has been popularly stated, Trump just happens to be in the way, it is us they’re after.
Why now? Of course we’ve seen this agitation for decades but not to this level; even in the late 1960s it wasn’t like this. It is now because today has seen the creation of a favorable contextual backing of which the main feature is a fractured society. To this end, it really wouldn’t matter who is in office although Trump is figuratively and literally the ‘wrong’ man according to them who seek complete control. So, it’s fair to say that Trump is the ‘least desirable’, i.e., the most stalwart to their aims.
LikeLike
More than a few people, even those with no tolerance at all for Trump, have pointed out that he has disrupted their plans for domination or control just by being in office. The “they” does not include just Democrats, or even just the regressive leftists. A good many so-called conservative GOP leaders also are part of the effort to remold society, the Fifty States, and the world into a new order.
LikeLike
“This latest is just more of the same. And with far less substance for the accusations levied against him.”
Hmm. With “Russiagate,” he denied the allegations.
With “Ukrainegate,” we so far have:
1) Trump’s public confession to the primary allegation;
2) an official White House document corroborating Trump’s public confession; and
3) text messages between diplomats further corroborating Trump’s public confession.
I’m not sure in what universe the latter has “far less substance” than the former.
LikeLike
Perhaps “far less” is the wrong way to characterize it. It is the House Democrats’ interpretation of the situation that seems to be far less credible than past claims.
LikeLike
That’s odd — I’ve been wondering why they’re soft-pedaling it.
Even if we assume that Trump’s motive in asking a foreign power to investigate a political opponent was not corrupt and that there was no quid pro quo, treaties are, along with the US Constitution, the “Supreme Law of the Land” and what he has admitted to doing violates no fewer than two provisions of the Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukrain on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf).
Article 2 of that treaty specifies the “Central Authorities” who may request and receive requests for investigations. The presidents of the two countries are not those “Central Authorities.”
Article 4 of that treaty specifies that the requests are to be made in writing, not by telephone.
Some of Trump’s defenders have mentioned the treaty, but they don’t seem very interested in its provisions. I haven’t heard the Democrats bring up Trump’s actions as a clear and unambiguous violation of the “Supreme Law of the Land” at all.
LikeLike
An excellent point. Just what are the “Central Authorities?” The written versus telephonic is something else to be argued, isn’t it? Usually some verbal discussion can be assumed to precede a formal, written request. As for defining such a request as corrupt, I’m not saying that Trump is not corrupt. Nor that Biden or virtually every other politicians in office isn’t, either. They are all corrupt. But exactly how does Trump’s corrupt act merit prosecution but Biden’s (or all of Ms. Clinton’s acts while in office, or others) NOT merit prosecution? Perhaps because corrupt as both parties are, the GOP powers-that-be didn’t see any advantage to them for doing so. Pelosi and her posse apparently do.
LikeLike
“Just what are the ‘Central Authorities?'”
The Attorney General of the United States or someone designated by him (presumably if Barr had designated Trump as the “Central Authority” under the treaty, either Trump or Barr would have cited that fact by now).
“The written versus telephonic is something else to be argued, isn’t it?”
No, it isn’t. The treaty specifies writing except in “urgent” matters — a 4-5 year old, publicly known allegation is hardly “urgent.
“But exactly how does Trump’s corrupt act merit prosecution but Biden’s (or all of Ms. Clinton’s acts while in office, or others) NOT merit prosecution?”
1) Who’s talking about prosecution? We’re talking about impeachment.
2) Donald Trump is a public official. Neither Joe Biden nor Hillary Clinton are public officials. That makes him subject to impeachment, and them not subject to impeachment.
3) When it comes to prosecution, I’m all for it in all three cases, although in Trump’s case it will have to wait until he’s out of office.
LikeLike
Excellent points, Tom.
1. I am a bit baffled that a subordinate of POTUS would be designated as the Central Authority, but don’t argue that – govmint (FedGov especially) does weird things.
2. As regards the verbal versus written, well, no surprise with Trump doing that, is it?
3. I considered impeachment to be a form of prosecution. And I was referring to when H Clinton and Biden WERE holding office in the executive branch, not today. The House could have pushed for impeachment of both of them, and the fact that they did not do so (while totally not a surprise) demonstrates the political nature and the hypocrisy (and probably their antipathy of Trump).
LikeLike
“I am a bit baffled that a subordinate of POTUS would be designated as the Central Authority”
Why would that be surprising at all? It’s a treaty concerning cooperation in criminal investigations. Between any two countries of significant size, there are probably several ongoing matters at any given time. It’s unlikely that the AG himself handles those matters, either. There’s probably a deputy assistant secretary’s aide to deal with that stuff for each larger country, and a few handling several smaller countries each. Every time an American gets arrested with a dime bag that he says he bought from a Pole in Laos, there are going to be requests going back and forth between all three countries.
There’s no doubt that this is a politically motivated matter. Those don’t rise to the level of actually moving toward impeachment in a big way very often, either for presidents or VPs/cabinet secretaries. But it’s not like it’s never bandied about.
No fewer than nine Republican and one Democratic member of Congress called, to one degree or another, for the impeachment of Obama at various times (so did the South Dakota Republican Party and the Oklahama Legislature), and in 2013 the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws,” hoping to drum up support for an impeachment inquiry.
Pelosi held out on impeachment for two years, presumably because she thinks it hurts Democratic election/re-election prospects. When she finally announced an impeachment inquiry, it was presumably because her whip count said that the votes were there to impeach and that she could either lead the parade or get left behind by it.
Here’s the thing about political matters: They’re politically driven, in this case from both sides. Trump’s been practically begging the Democrats to impeach him since he was inaugurated, because Poor Poor Martyr Donald Trump plays well with his base. And the Democratic base has been in favor of impeachment since the beginning because they think he’s a corrupt pawn of Putin, etc.
The only thing holding it back was actual Democratic congresscritters who weren’t going to move without a sure thing — something that the Senate either has to convict on or be publicly seen saying “the law doesn’t matter” (just like with Bill Clinton). Now they’ve got that sure thing, public support for impeachment has passed 50%, and their base is telling them to get it done. So they will.
LikeLike