Population Control - An inconvenient truth

[Steve R.]

Col, I actually agree with you that a USA coup is HIGHLY unlikely.

A coup is not necessarily limited to the traditional military brazenly taking to the streets, tossing tear gas, bombing a few buildings, and then arresting all dissenters. The Mueller witch-hunt may be on the way to becoming a (clandestine) coup should they (successfully) criminally charge most of people in the administration and thereby de-legitimize the election. There is that Russian saying: "Show me the man, I'll show the crime."

(Of course, the Mueller witch-hunt has yet to conclude, my comments can therefore be considered speculative and premature.)

Picture source: Mueller Probe

The image above also touches on the growing trend of the US judicial system becoming increasingly secret. We now have a secret court system (that should be declared unconstitutional) and much of the workings of the Muller witch-hunt and even US Congressional review are being done in secret. (A claim can be made that the Mueller witch-hunt is itself unwarranted since it is based, in part, on faux evidence that was presented to the FISA court and not properly vetted.)

Documents that have been released to Congress have been heavily redacted. Testimony being given to Congress, in some cases, has been secret (behind closed doors) under the (false) claim of protecting "National Security".

I am reminded of that saying from the movie "V for Vendetta": " People should not be afraid of their government,government should be afraid of their people."

 

[isladogs]

Steve
You repeated Trump's judgemental phrase 'Mueller witch-hunt' four times in your last post.
Like everyone else you have no idea what the outcome will be.
Your comments are totally speculative, utterly premature and completely lacking in any factual basis.
The inquiry (a more balanced word) is of course headed by a life long republican.
If the inquiry finds senior members of the administration, possibly including Trump, to have broken the law, they will be tried in a suitable court and found innocent or guilty based on the evidence presented.
If the evidence is insufficient or there is no evidence indicating any collusion with Russia, then no charges will be brought. Would that mean the investigation had after all been fair?

 

[Steve R.]

Like everyone else you have no idea what the outcome will be.
Your comments are totally speculative, utterly premature and completely lacking in any factual basis.

I have acknowledged that my comments have been speculative and that the final report has yet to be released. Maybe you missed it.

(Of course, the Mueller witch-hunt has yet to conclude, my comments can therefore be considered speculative and premature.)

I have noted that the paper trail (AKA facts) is being hidden from the public. So why is that? From the conspiracy angle it implies a deceitful approach to how the investigation is being conducted.

The investigation is solely targeted on the Trump administration despite the overwhelming evidence that the Democrats were also involved in corruption. So why is that?

According to a one page memo establishing the Special Counsel the mandate was "... to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, .." . The mandate does not say investigate the Trump campaign. Based on the broad statement of supposed Russian interference, a valid investigation should have looked at the Democratic side too. (Of course there have been subsequent documents further specifying (actually broadening) the scope of Mueller's witch-hunt, but it is my understanding (substitute the word "rumor" if you like) that these memos are secret. Again, the level of secrecy in this investigation implies that something is not right.

I have acknowledged not knowing all the "facts". But what has been disclosed so far smells of a political hit-job of some sort. What facts do you have that would demonstrate that this is not a political hit-job?

Anyway, we wait.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Colin, it's even more pathetic than that. The Trumpstaffel are so caught up in their hysteria about the possibility that Der Orangenführer might actually be held accountable for their actions that they have apparently forgotten even the basics of how the US government works.

The fact is that Mueller has zero authority to charge a sitting President. The only person who might be able to is the (Acting) Attorney General, and the Cheeto in Chief was very careful to place in charge a man who has already made it painfully obvious that he values his loyalty to Dear Leader more than his loyalty to his nation, enough that he will be more than happy to bury the report.

Even assuming assuming Whitaker suffers an acute attack of conscience, legal experts generally agree that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, which puts the ball in Congress's court. And here's what makes all the claims of some sort of Democratic coup completely and utterly laughable: while POTUS can, indeed, be impeached by a majority vote of the House of Representatives, actual removal from office requires a 2/3 vote in favor of conviction in the Senate. The Senate session about to begin is comprised of 47 Democrats (counting Sanders and King, since they generally vote with the Democrats) and 53 Republicans. Last time I checked, 47 was far less than 2/3 of 100, meaning that removal from office would require 20 Republicans to go along with it, and that's assuming every single Democrat and independent votes for conviction. And I don't think there are 20 Republicans in national government willing to put nation before party any longer.

Anyway, the last time I checked, a coup generally doesn't require the active and willing cooperation of the people being overthrown in order to succeed.

Finally, even if the so-called 'Democratic coup' succeeds (with the help of nearly 40% of all sitting GOP senators, mind you), all that happens is Mike Pence becomes POTUS.

That is what SteveR apparently fears: a Democrat 'coup' whose only possible result if it succeeds is to put in office a man who is even MORE right-wing than Adolf Twitler, and in such a way that the man can be president for TEN years instead of the usual limit of eight.

 

[isladogs]

Of course I didn't miss your comment about speculation and being premature.
Indeed that was why I used those exact words in confirming that is indeed the case.
However, having no evidence to support your views, clearly doesn't stop you presenting them as though they are facts. They are not. They are purely your views.
For any investigation to be able to run its course in an impartial way, it needs to remain secret until its findings are completed. Not just this investigation. Any investigation.
I have no idea who will be implicated and of what. Nor do you.
Please stick to facts instead of promoting conspiracy theories about conclusions which have not been made public and rightly will not be made public until the investigation has finished.
And please use a non-judgemental phrase: It is not a witch-hunt

 

[Steve R.]

Even assuming assuming Whitaker suffers an acute attack of conscience, legal experts generally agree that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, which puts the ball in Congress's court. And here's what makes all the claims of some sort of Democratic coup completely and utterly laughable: while POTUS can, indeed, be impeached by a majority vote of the House of Representatives, actual removal from office requires a 2/3 vote in favor of conviction in the Senate. The Senate session about to begin is comprised of 47 Democrats (counting Sanders and King, since they generally vote with the Democrats) and 53 Republicans. Last time I checked, 47 was far less than 2/3 of 100, meaning that removal from office would require 20 Republicans to go along with it, and that's assuming every single Democrat and independent votes for conviction. And I don't think there are 20 Republicans in national government willing to put nation before party any longer.

The issue of impeachment, while correct, was not a concern that I was thinking of. You can say that I overlooked the impeachment angle. My thoughts were more aimed an unjust investigation leading to the administration being "crippled" thereby not effectively governing.

PS: Compared to Democrats, Republicans have very little party loyalty.

 

[Frothingslosh]

My thoughts were more aimed an unjust investigation leading to the administration being "crippled" thereby not effectively governing.

You mean, for example, a sitting president getting investigated for a year and a half for getting a hummer?

PS: Compared to Democrats, Republicans have very little party loyalty.

Other than with the ACA, the last 8 years would suggest otherwise, and even the ACA repeal failed only because a whole three Republicans decided to vote for their constituents rather than for McConnel's attempt to raze everything Obama did to the ground. Republicans have had a far better track record of toeing the line than Democrats have. The only real issues the GOP has had lately has been complaints from the ultra-right-wing that the party isn't extreme ENOUGH, and a few half-hearted attempts to slow things down in order to make bills even more right-wing, whereas Democrats keep trying to compromise, and several (largely from more conservative areas) keep crossing over to vote with the Republicans in anything that's not one of the absolute showdowns.

 

[Steve R.]

Other than with the ACA, the last 8 years would suggest otherwise, and even the ACA repeal failed only because a whole three Republicans decided to vote for their constituents rather than for McConnel's attempt to raze everything Obama did to the ground. Republicans have had a far better track record of toeing the line than Democrats have. The only real issues the GOP has had lately has been complaints from the ultra-right-wing that the party isn't extreme ENOUGH, and a few half-hearted attempts to slow things down in order to make bills even more right-wing, whereas Democrats keep trying to compromise, and several (largely from more conservative areas) keep crossing over to vote with the Republicans in anything that's not one of the absolute showdowns.

We can dance around this forever. The Republican Party is really and amalgam of three sub-parties that are periodically involved in civil-wars. In two years, besides the failure to abolish the ACA, the Republicans have failed to revise immigration law, and they failed on getting to a balanced budget. That hardly displays party unity.

I know of no Democratic civil-war. Nor do I know of any independent Democrats similar to (renegade) Republicans such as McCain or Flake. Romney will probably be a new "independent" Republican senator. Can you name any Democratic Congress people who would be similar to McCain or Flake who would vote against Democratic legislation that is being pushed by the Democratic leadership?

Look at the Kavanaugh nomination hearing where not one Democrat spoke up to condemn (by Democrats) the use of lies, character assassination, and not recognizing due process. Except for Manchin, the Democrats blindly toed the party line to vote against Kavanaugh. I did not detect any "national interest" over "party interest" by Democrats.

You've made your case. I've made mine. Both of us will be perpetually as odds.

PS: Since posting, I remembered this. Obama to get re-elected proposed making the irresponsible Bush tax cuts permanent. The Republicans, because they heard the words "tax cuts", like moths attracted to a light flocked to approve them; not realizing that this would cost them the election. Unlike Democrats, Republicans are politically stupid. Obama won.

The Trump administration proposed a tax cut and not one Democrat, if I remember correctly, voted for it. Again, the Democrats have demonstrated total party unity even to the point of rejecting a tax plan that would help the economy. Apparently the Republican tax plan is working to improve the economy. (Yes - you can toss in that this tax plan will ballon deficit spending and that it should be revised.)

 

[Steve R.]

You repeated Trump's judgemental phrase 'Mueller witch-hunt' four times in your last post.
Like everyone else you have no idea what the outcome will be.
Your comments are totally speculative, utterly premature and completely lacking in any factual basis.
The inquiry (a more balanced word) is ...

This morning my news feed pointed to an article by Alan Derchowitz which uses "balanced" words for the inquiry instead of my more colorful language. Provoking New Crimes Rather than Uncovering Past Crimes: Mueller's Modus Operandi by Alan Derchowitz. So I hope that you find Derchowitz language more to your liking and that you also get a better understanding of where I am coming from on this issue.

I also located this article by Jonathan Turley: What does Mueller have on Trump?

Both Derchowitz and Turley are very good neutral lawyers. Both believe that Mueller has exceeded his mandate, which is also my contention. I trust that you will find these articles instructive.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Colin, it's even more pathetic than that. The Trumpstaffel are so caught up in their hysteria about the possibility that Der Orangenführer might actually be held accountable for their actions that they have apparently forgotten even the basics of how the US government works.

The fact is that Mueller has zero authority to charge a sitting President. The only person who might be able to is the (Acting) Attorney General, and the Cheeto in Chief was very careful to place in charge a man who has already made it painfully obvious that he values his loyalty to Dear Leader more than his loyalty to his nation, enough that he will be more than happy to bury the report.

The progressives in this country are so hyper focused on getting this president, they never stop to think they alone created him. People are sick of being dictated to by the extreme far left.

 

[isladogs]

Or the extreme far right

 

[AccessBlaster]

Or the extreme far right

No argument here, Touché.

 

[isladogs]

And of course what counts as 'extreme' and 'far' is subjective anyway.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

AB: Good point. Obama was "progressive" (is that new-speak for "socialist"?) and there was a backlash. Hillary was going the other way from the swinging pendulum of public opinion. DJT was going in the direction of the pendulum.

 

[isladogs]

But to repeat a previous comment.
Three million more people voted Democrat than Republican in the last presidential election.
Furthermore Obama was definitely not left wing. "Liberal' in terms of social policy. Centrist in terms of economics.
Clinton was well to the right in many of her views and in much of Europe would be regarded as right wing. I'm sure you can extrapolate where that would place Trump and Pence.

 

[ColinEssex]

Americans crack me up.
You all witter on about corruption, wrongdoing going against the constitution etc. Then you all go on about impeachment of DT.
By the time anything is actually done, DT will have finished his term and the next president who wins with the lowest populace vote will be installed and you'll all be moaning on about him/her.

As for the coup that Doc hinted at, I can't really see that happening. I recall the uprising in Selma Alabama in 1968, that was a brilliant opportunity for the authorities to kill as many blacks as they could under the quelling a riot banner.
Imagine how many the authorities could kill going under the quelling a coup banner.

To be fair though, in the UK we moan on just the same about governments whoever is in power, but our action is to write a strongly worded letter to our MP's.

Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

But to repeat a previous comment.
Three million more people voted Democrat than Republican in the last presidential election.

The discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college can be found in California. In fact the so called millions of popular votes that Hillary em massed came from "New Democrats" in California if you get my drift. More new Democrat voters, now clamoring at the southern border.

Clinton was well to the right in many of her views and in much of Europe would be regarded as right wing. I'm sure you can extrapolate where that would place Trump and Pence.

True enough, he had to move to the center to get elected. But he governed from the left. Which is fine and not a surprise.

 

[isladogs]

The discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college can be found in California. In fact the so called millions of popular votes that Hillary em massed came from "New Democrats" in California if you get my drift. More new Democrat voters, now clamoring at the southern border.

3 million across the country as a whole. Certain states including California, New York do indeed have a large Democratic majority but that's not relevant to the overall population voting numbers.

True enough, he had to move to the center to get elected. But he governed from the left. Which is fine and not a surprise.

I assume you mean Obama though the previous sentence you quoted didn't mention him.
Again its a matter of perception as to what constitutes 'left' or 'right' - let alone extreme ....

In the UK, Obama would have been viewed as a centrist politician, particularly in terms of economic policy.
In fact I'm not aware of any well established & internationally known US politicians who would be regarded over here as extreme left.
Bernie Sanders is certainly a left wing politician by US standards but would fit in the middle of the Labour Party here.
Of course our own (not so well loved) ex-PM Tony Blair could easily have been a Conservative in terms of many of the actions he was responsible for.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Clinton ran as a centrist, but governed from the left.

 

[isladogs]

You mean Bill? There we would also disagree.

He did preside over one of the longest periods of economic growth in recent decades. Of course that was at least partly due to the budget cuts under Bush Snr (41) which alienated much of the Republican base and was a contributory factor to him losing in 1991