A coup is taking place in our country right now.

[mia]

At this point, the Separation of Powers doctrine no longer exists. Welcome to the world of doublespeak. Orwell would be proud.

BARR: “IT’S NOT A CRIME” FOR TRUMP TO DEMAND STAFFERS LIE TO INVESTIGATORS
Isn’t that literally obstruction of justice?

...In case there was any remaining doubt that William Barr sees his job as protecting Donald Trump, his testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee on Wednesday—the first of two days of public hearings on Capitol Hill—made perfectly clear where the attorney general’s allegiance lies. Even in a case where Trump literally instructed a White House lawyer to lie on the record (obstruction) to hide the fact that he tried to fire the man investigating him (obstruction).

“You . . . have a situation where a president essentially tries to change the lawyer’s account in order to prevent further criticism of himself,” Senator Dianne Feinstein told Barr during her allotted five minutes, pointing to the fact that the president told former White House counsel Don McGahn to lie to investigators about Trump instructing him to remove Mueller. Why, she wondered, is that not obstruction of justice? To which Barr responded, “Well, that’s not a crime.”

“So you can, in this situation, instruct someone to lie?” Feinstein asked.

“We felt that in that episode the government would not be able to establish obstruction,” Barr replied. “If you look at that episode . . . the instruction said ‘Go to [Rod] Rosenstein, raise the issue of conflict of interest and Mueller has to go because of this conflict of interest.’ So there’s not question that whatever instruction was given to McGahn had to to do with conflict of interest . . . To be obstruction of justice the lie has to be tied to impairing the evidence in a particular proceeding. McGahn had already given his evidence and I think it would be plausible that the purpose of McGahn memorializing what the president was asking was to make the record that the president never directed him to fire. And there is a distinction between saying to someone, ‘go fire him, go fire Mueller’ and saying ‘have him removed based on conflict.’”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/barr-not-a-crime-for-trump-to-demand-staffers-lie-to-investigators

[StarfishSaver]

1. No, it's not

[mia]

6. Without impeachment that's where we stand.

Mueller Left a Gap. Barr Just Filled It.
Expecting the Justice Department to do Congress’s job was always a mistake.

...Impeachment must be the only solution to Trump’s challenge to the constitutional order. The Constitution did not envision that the criminal-justice system would address abuses of presidential power. Since Watergate, we have embarked on a 40-year experiment in using the criminal law to resolve separation-of-powers disputes. If Ken Starr’s sprawling Whitewater probe had not already demonstrated it, the Mueller report should prove that the experiment has failed. The Framers vested in the president the authority to oversee all federal law enforcement. As Alexander Hamilton observed in Federalist No. 70, “good government” requires “energy in the executive,” and a vigorous president is “essential to the protection of the community from foreign attacks” and “the steady administration of the laws.” Because of this original design, a president can order the end of any investigation, even one into his own White House.

The creation of independent counsels was an attempt to solve this conflict of interest, but the cure was worse than the disease. A special counsel, as even Trump realized upon learning of Mueller’s appointment, could spell the end of a presidency by diverting executive power outside constitutional controls and sapping the White House of its energy. Independent counsels further have the convenient effect of relieving Congress of its own constitutional duty to constrain an abusive president.

If Congress truly believes that a president has abused his powers, it can cut off funds, block his nominees, and impede his legislative priorities. It can proceed under impeachment, which allows for the removal of a president for treason, bribery, “or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” As Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 65, this last category of offenses includes those which “proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” Congress can conclude that the same conduct raised in the Mueller report justifies removal from office, even if it is not criminal.

The Framers did not want legislators to avoid the responsibility of curbing presidential abuse of power by hiding behind prosecutors or the courts. Impeachment may place that awesome duty in a body subject to political pressures and sensitive to other national demands. Nevertheless, the Constitution makes Congress alone accountable for removing a president who abuses his office. Ultimately, both Attorney General Barr and Special Counsel Mueller have done the nation a service not just by clearing the president of collusion, but by returning the question of obstruction to Congress, where it belongs.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/barr-isnt-problem-special-counsels-are/588523/

[StarfishSaver]

8. If a coup were taking place, impeachment wouldn't be an option

Last edited Thu May 2, 2019, 11:09 AM - Edit history (1)

We are in difficult times, but this is not a "coup d'etat" - or anything close.

[pazzyanne]

13. More information, please.

Your contributions to the discussion are important. I for one would like to see more details about your take on this thread. Thank you in advance.

[MH1]

14. Effective impeachment, resulting in removal from office, is probably NOT an option.

If the Republican party stands with Trump - regardless of the obvious crime of obstruction of justice - Trump stays in office.

With the evidence of treason laid out before us, there is some rationale in calling it a "coup", when there is no effective means to remove the treasonous sitting president from office. Even should Trump himself be removed, without removing Pence, it will make no difference.

[StarfishSaver]

27. It actually IS an option. The fact that we don't yet have the votes for it

doesn't mean it's not an option. This is a democracy and part of living in a democracy is the reality that we don't get what we want just because we want it if we don't have enough votes and support for it.

The key is not to whine about how our inability to achieve a certain end because we don't have the votes constitutes a coup d'etat (when it's actually proof of the exact opposite), but to get engaged and help to build the support that can result in the votes we need to accomplish our goal.

[calimary]

48. The most important thing is how history will judge all this - AND us.

We need to impeach because we need to leave a mark. trump needs to carry that big blemish on his record into the history books.

When we’re all dead and only the historical record remains, we NEED to have left a mark. We have to. Otherwise, WE’RE the ones with the spines of Jello. We’re the ones who will carry that shame, of not having done the right thing when we were in position to do so - when we had the power and the majority in the House and could have left that blot on his bio, and to Hell with what the Senate does with it. If we don’t leave a mark of impeachment by his name, we will have a worse one - the mark of cowardice - by ours.

We can’t afford to shrug this off, or cave, or settle or capitulate - even to Barr. We cannot shirk our duty - to our country, our Constitution, and our future.

[mia]

49. Well said.

Thank you.

[Cetacea]

41. Clinton remained in office but dems lost Congress

and the presidency.

[mia]

43. May the reverse scenario happen in 2020.

After his impeachment, Trump will remain in office and Pubs will lose Congress and the presidency.

[olegramps]

24. In Nixon's case there were Republicans who still respected the law and democratic principes.

I can not stress the fact enough that the Republicans have been totally converted to the establishment of a authoritarian presidency. It is the realization of over fourth years of effort by the Republicans and the extensive polarization by the right wing media that is making it a distinct possibility.

The concept which they have pursued called the Unitary Presidency in which every government agency is subject to the dictates of the president is being applied by this administration. There few if any Republican representatives that are willing to challenge the open lawlessness of this administration. If left unchecked, the principles upon which the nation was founded will be consigned to the dustbin of history as little more than a failed experiment. The warning of the nation's founders that an informed electorate is essential to maintain a government that is truly of the people and for the people.

The keystone of our present dilemma is solely the result of massive propaganda by the rightwing extremists. We are faced with a situation in which about 30% of the population has been convinced that they are protectors of nation against hedonistic immoral progressives. It virtually impossible to have a logical discussion with people who are being daily subjected to this type of propaganda. Their representatives do not dare contradict the extremist who control the broadcast media knowing that their electability is at stake. Where the nation goes from here is beyond my capacities, however, I will venture to say that if the Republican Party is not defeated in the up coming elections the nation will be see itself well on the to being ruled by a fascist dictatorship. The future is not in the hands of elder citizens such as myself, but in control of the youth who seem to be in far too many cases oblivious to the what the future will be if the present situation is not rectified quickly.

[mr_lebowski]

30. +1000

Only when a Repub is POTUS, though ...

[Doremus]

46. Correction: Unitary (Republican) Executive. Does not apply to Dems. nt

[Bradshaw3]

31. A slow moving coup is still a coup

Even if it's too slow for some to acknowledge. Congress has the constituional oversight right and duty. That - along with many other democracy-killing lawbreaking examles too numerous to list - by the WH and Congressional repubs fit into the narrative of a long-form coup. It will eventually come down to the courts as to whether the coup is successful. Doesn't mean it isn't happening, and anyone who thinks that what is happening now is not even close to a coup is not paying attention.

[StarfishSaver]

33. You don't seem to understand what a coup actually is

It is the overthrow of an existing government, usually, but not always, through violence.

The existing government of the United States is still in place. Our officials have been duly elected or appointed and sworn. No one has been overthrown.

Governor officials are performing their jobs or the fact that they are abusing their positions does not make this a coup.

[Bradshaw3]

47. Thanks for proving my point

That you don't understand that a slow moving coup is still a coup. Duly appointed? Duly elected? Really, you are that, how shall I put it it, naive, lacking information? Forgot about Merrick Garland? The 2016 election? The repubs in wisconsin trying to upend the 2018 elections? I could list all the examples and it wouldn't make a diference so perhaps you should read up on some histories of coups.

Abusing positions of power is how coups begin. Governments still function, but democracies don't. This is a slow moving coup by members of a minority party who are abusing their power in order to get or maintain levers of power that prevent the laws we have in place from being enforced.

[triron]

38. You are kidding yourself. Or just obfuscating.

[pnwmom]

51. We are teetering on the brink of a bloodless coup.

If the Russians help them win the Presidency and Congress in 2020, we've lost, and there's no reason to think we'll ever have a real Democracy again.

[duforsure]

2. He also claimed

A president can stop any investigation of himself by claiming excuses he is being falsely prosecuted, or eliminate any oversight by Congress, which is against the Constitution. Shows how little Barr believe's in the rule of law, and OUR system of justice, and Democracy. Barr's just another corrupt liar trump can use against us now as his personal weapon.

[Iliyah]

5. Barr hates the Constitution and any rules of laws only

pertaining to Republicans. Republicans are superior.

This does sound familiar and it happened as recent has WW2.

Believe or not, simi sane Republicans are already making a move to bring back some sort of reality back to the USA.

[Cosmocat]

20. T H I S - media should note this

He, like Kavanaugh, Lindsey Graham, the whole stinking lot of them have two VERY different sets of rules.

Dems bad, Republicans good ...

[sprinkleeninow]

54. This guy (Rivkin?) spouted on PBS News Hour just now that

the president is the country's chief law enforcement officer??

This turkey worked under raygun and the 'mad cow'boy.

[Zoonart]

3. The coup occurred on election night 2016.

We are almost three years into the GOP rolling coup.

[jrthin]

7. Exactly. The exact date: 11/8/16.

[Left-over]

12. You are absolutely right!!!

[MH1]

15. Yes.

Assisted by anti-Hillary factions outside the GOP and on all edges of the political spectrum. Never forget.

[DemocracyMouse]

25. Excuse me, but having an opinion about the Clintons, Wall Street, or any other part of political...

...life is democracy, not collusion with the Russians. Please don't prop up ANY politician as a king or queen.

[malaise]

21. Correct

[Generic Other]

22. Exactly

Time to start fighting back.

[StarfishSaver]

28. That wasn't a coup. That was an election. And the person who got the most electoral votes won

That's how our system works.

We're in a bad situation. But there's no need to engage in self-defeating rhetoric that paints it as something different and worse than it actually is.

We are still operating within the distinct and strong framework of a democracy (actually a Democratic Republic). Please don't get it twisted.

[mia]

34. You forgot about the "sweeping and systematic" Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Do you think that Trump would have gotten "the most electoral votes" if not for Russian interference? How will 2020 be any different?

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political or social discord in the United States. This was documented in the Mueller Report (Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election), which also described the interference as "sweeping and systematic" and having broken U.S. criminal law....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

[StarfishSaver]

35. Still not a coup

If election cheating constituted a coup d'etat, we've been subject to 100s of coups in our history (including Kennedy's presidency).

If we were in a couple d'etat, the Democrats would not have taken back the House in a peaceful transfer, Pelosi wouldn't be speaker, we wouldn't be gearing up for presidential elections that a Democrat could win - unless you think that's an impossibility, which would mean you also think that Sanders, Harris, Biden, Booker, Warren, et al are all either clueless idiots or complicit since, given they know more about government and politics than any of us do, why would they be wasting their time engaging in a futile exercise?

We are NOT in or even near a coup. But if you choose to continue believing such, that's fine - but don't expect to influence me into joining you in such fatalist thinking.

[standingtall]

40. Kennedy got 303 electoral votes

even if there were dead people voting in Chicago and Nixon had won Illinois Kennedy would've still been President because the electoral college existed then too.

[former9thward]

50. You are ignoring Texas.

Nixon was urged to demand a recount not only in IL but especially in TX where there was all sorts of documented election "problems". He decided to move on and did not ask for the recount.

[standingtall]

53. Voter fraud was never proven in Texas in 1960

and even if there was the margin would've probably been to large to make up. Besides they had a poll tax in Texas in 1960 and registered voter figures only included those who paid the tax and there were others who were exempt from paying the poll tax who wouldn't have been counted in the figures so there is an explanation of where the extra votes in certain counties came from.

[Blues Heron]

37. yeah and it was stolen from the person who got the most votes AGAIN

that's one hell of a "system" that keeps overturning the CLEAR will of the people. Gore got more, and so did Hillary. It's an electoral coup AT BEST, but a coup nonetheless.

[Blues Heron]

4. "episode" FFS this whole show needs to be shitcanned

[pazzyanne]

16. Wow!

Just wow! The constitution is under attack. Do I understand you correctly that the oversight of the House Judicial Committee should be "shitcanned"? Please elaborate.

[Blues Heron]

36. the maladministration not the oversight

episode, show, shit show, truman show trump show.

[yaesu]

9. It took place back in 2016

& we are now dealing with an illegal fascist regime bent on destroying this country, plain & simple.

[dlk]

10. It's More of an Attempted Coup-We Can't Allow Republicans to Continue to Flout the Law

With Trump & Co., our institutions are being seriously tested. We can’t afford to give an inch. It’s the typical Republican playbook - throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. Without a doubt, it’s a multi- front assault.

[uponit7771]

11. Barr proffered "remove" is not the same as "fire" which is 100% sophistry

[TommyCelt]

17. 1984 nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. Anybody still think the Constitution can wait until 2020? Nt

[triron]

39. Hillary is warning the 2020 democratic presidential candidates.

[ancianita]

19. What's happening is more like a "capture" than a coup. There will still be the veneer of govt,

mostly two-tier: law and order for humans, above-the-law status for fictional personhoods and their bagmen.

A nation of laws is struggling against turning into a nation of (bag)men.

[jalan48]

23. It's been going on for awhile. 2000 and 2016 elections where the loser is the winner,

endless wars generating trillions in profits while the taxpayers foot the bill and giant corporations pay zero taxes. Trump is the logical conclusion to this corrupt system, it's not about the Constitution, it's about power and the continuation of private profit at the public expense even if it means dictatorship.

[beachbum bob]

26. Unless pelosi starts passing articles of impeachment against the likes of Barr,

we continue to prove GOP is right that we lack the guts

[StarfishSaver]

29. What's your endgame after Articles of Impeachment are approved by the House?

[beachbum bob]

55. the end game is to use full power of the House, IF the framers of the constitution were worried

about articles being passed in the house by a simple majority but a full conviction needed 2/3rds in the Senate, they would have made the same requirement of the House.

The idea of having your legacy forever tarnished motivates some people...Let GOP defend corruption in the Senate. Let McConnel sit on 6 or 7 impeachment hearings and let american people decide in 2020 election do we have laws or not.

[pnwmom]

52. No. That would be dumb.

If we just quickly passed the articles of impeachment, they would immediately go to the Senate, and the Senate would uphold Trump.

We need lots and lots of public hearings, a long, drawn-out process, letting the public experience all the horrors the R's have been hiding. At that point, much closer to the election than now, the Senate will either agree to convict and remove him from office; or they won't. And if they don't, after seeing all the evidence that will be uncovered, the public is likely to rise up and vote him out.

[StarfishSaver]

56. Too many people want instant gratification, a feeling of "We sure showed HIM!"

and don't seem to care whether anything actually changes in the long run.

Like you, I prefer doing it right, not fast. Especially since the "we sure showed HIM" approach is meaningless when "him" is a narcissistic sociopath with no shame who would embrace impeachment as both a rallying flag and a badge of honor.

[Kurt V.]

32. this

This is part of a growing attack on American democracy and an attack on Congress as a coequal branch of govt...it’s a grave danger for American democracy” - @RepJerryNadler

[niyad]

42. the coup began 11/9/2016