How Do We Stage A Coup In The USA? Part I

These being slow days, and out cold civil war heating up by degree, especially with the deep state faux impeachment, it seems proper to revisit the idea of a coup, and how it might come about. Part II tomorrow. This originally ran 25 July 2017.

I ask the titular question in the same spirit as that posed in Edward N Luttwak’s Coup D’État: A Practical Handbook, a classic which was revamped and reissued last year, a book packed with dry humor and good advice on how to throw off the shackles of tyranny. Update If you find yourself “troubled” by this article, ask yourself: should Luttwak withdraw his book?

Reactionaries of all stripes ought to pay the closest attention to this book. These folks are full of thoughts and words most glorious describing the ills which plague us and of which of all forms of government is best. But they are relatively, or even wholly, silent on how to get from here, from the Hell to which we are descending, to the sunny uplands of monarchy.

Well, you can’t fault them. Nobody really knows how. Or rather, we do know how, we just don’t know the details.

Here, then, is a sketch—a prediction—of how such a change might be brought about; or may be brought about by forces who are as yet unknown to us. These “forces” probably won’t be anybody we’ve heard of. Men at the top of the current regime’s hierarchy won’t be too interested in toppling it, unless their love of God and Reality is overwhelmingly strong. And if it was, they’d scarcely have reached the top of system, unless they were heroically and exceptionally devious and patient. No, look for somebody like an Army major, a Southerner with a strong network of brother soldiers who, say, snaps after being ordered to treat a tranny as if the tranny was sane.

Take this article as an outline of what might happen. Except for the form of the main strike, which I insist is the only workable mechanism, I emphasize sketch, because much of the plan lacks flesh. Readers are invited to supply this flesh.

First strike

We speak of a coup and not a revolution or civil war. We’re discussing a direct seizure of power by elements either in or close to government. The techniques for this move vary, as the Handbook details, but I’ll be blunt and suggest that while there are many paths to revolution or civil strife, there is only one clear possibility for a successful coup in the USA.

We must clancy the government.

In his 1994 Debt of Honor, Tom Clancy has a rogue pilot crash a 747 into the Capitol building during a joint session of Congress. Everybody in the building, including the Supreme Court Justices, Cabinet, and Joint Chiefs, was killed. Clancy’s hero, Jack Ryan, who is Vice President, happened to be absent and so became President.

To clancy, then, is to kill all potential enemies at once, a true decapitation, thus creating a clear path for our ascension. I say “kill”, because this is war and there is no point to squeamish euphemisms between we compatriots, and also because that is the sole solution. (It is also Luttwak’s word.)

Nothing less than killing every Senator, Representative, Cabinet member and a few token military leaders like the for-show Joint Chiefs (the theater commanders have the real power) would work, and the reason is simple. If any group, comprised of members in or out of the current government, were to seize, say, the White House and declare itself in charge, the entire media, people and military outside that group’s control would fall in behind the highest ranking Federal politician who has escaped that group’s knives.

Say we waited until the President was undergoing surgery and we incapacitated or isolated the Vice President and Secretary of State, while simultaneously barricading ourselves in the White House supported by whatever local brigade we have backing us. Everybody would watch television for the spectacle, waiting to see how we were destroyed, and absolutely nobody would take our claim seriously.

Even if we killed the President, VP, and the Cabinet, say by sneaking a device into Camp David during some important retreat, the Speaker of the House would assert his right and we again would not be taken seriously. Of, supposing we had the Speaker killed, too, then some Senator or Representative would say he rightfully holds power and he would be believed, even though the right of succession only officially runs through the Cabinet.

It has to be everybody, all at once. The people and media know who the government is, which is why everybody in it not with us must be killed. The government that people know must be rubbed out in its entirety, because the form and structure of the current government is too ingrained in the thoughts of minds of citizens, who would latch onto and support any remnant of the old regime that slipped past our dragnet.

It would be best, for the “optics”, if we could have as a leader or a front some current high-ranking official with us as part of the coup. We could trot him out in front of the smoldering ruins of the Capitol and his claims of succession would be embraced by most. (This is clearly not the current VP; but perhaps General Mattis sees himself in this role; or perhaps President Trump himself, though this is extraordinarily doubtful, because these men were promoted within the current system.) There would probably be other minor officials making or disputing our claim of succession, but these people can be quickly arrested or otherwise dissuaded.

The Mechanism

Now it does not have to be a plane that does the clancy, but the coup has to begin at the State of the Union address. Nothing else is as big a draw, nothing else gathers the government in one spot. This makes planning easy and difficult. Easy, because the dates and many of the details are known in advance; difficult, because when the word of a potential coup leaks, which it will, the annual address will fall under the hazy gaze of the intelligence services. Of which there are at least nineteen and growing. (Luttwak lists them: “That more is less when it comes to intelligence will no doubt be recognized one day.”) More on them later.

We might try to make the incident appear as an accident, but nobody will buy a “gas explosion” or “electrical fire” or whatever; besides, people will ask how come some people did not escape a simple fire? No, we need either an aircraft laden with explosives, a missile, an in-place explosive device, or something equally devastating (biological weapons are far too iffy).

A plane or missile requires extensive planning and cooperation with either the Navy or Air Force, and for a device probably the Army. But it’s not as bad as it sounds. We only need those men in charge of the particular weapons, men who can ensure they have loyal soldiers, sailors, or airmen under them. A device is best, because its origin has the best chance not to be positively identified quickly (don’t forget the military will be under our control at this point). Long after we seized power, it doesn’t matter much that people figure out we planted it, and indeed this could work in our favor. A missile or a plane will be seen (as in tracked), and their origin can be identified easily. We wouldn’t want it known that the missile was shot from a Navy ship, for instance. A true clancy with a civilian aircraft is workable only if the Air Force commander in charge of the planes protecting the Capitol airspace is with us.

Getting the device inside the Capitol won’t be too hard. Not if we have at least some of the security forces working for us. Since we will have planting rumors of potential attacks by foreign entities (Muslims), we can call the device “protective electronics” or whatever. The real work will be in co-opting the normal security procedures and radiation sniffers (we can admit our device has radioactive material; science demands it, or whatever). You can see how quickly membership in the coup must grow. (We don’t want too strong a radioactive device, anyway, because we must occupy the White House for the symbolism.)

The Event

We’ll have to ensure that the particular Address we pick packs them in. We will have planted various rumors, and caused some small incidents not too far in advance that will heighten the interest of government to be there, either to hear something “important”, or to be seen. We won’t get everybody. Somebody always has a reason they cannot attend. That means the closer we get to the coup, the more we have to pay attention to attendees. We will have to have enough members in our team that we have sufficient manpower to go after whoever does not attend—but we must remain small enough so that we are not exposed.

For instance, a politician could be back in his home state for some reason and miss the Address. So we’ll have to have in our bag flexible plans to arrest these members after the coup. This will require a lot of thought since the places the absentees can be are various.

Arrest, not kill. Why? Because the incident we stage which takes out the Capitol must be made to look like it was carried out by an external or internal enemy that is not us. We need to act in the controlled media blitz aftermath as bewildered as anybody else about the cause (about that control, more later). How could this unknown enemy attack the Capitol and the stragglers? We would fall under suspicion too soon. Of course, if we can get to the absentees before they can make public statements, then they can be killed.

Those arrested must be watched by especially zealous or loyal troops working for us. By definition these men will be leaders, well used to commanding and “bending people to their will.” Luttwak has great insight to the psychology of these men, and shows how often coups are lost by careless guarding of them.

On that same line, we must be most suspicious after the coup of the members we recruited from the current regime, because, of course, “it would be unusual to have the complete loyalty of those who (since they joined our coup in the first place) must be to some extent inherently disloyal”. And somebody has to be boss. As the movie said: there can be only one. Kerensky should have killed Lenin on Day Two. “Assertions of loyalty will usually be worthless because they are made by men who have just abandoned their previous…masters.” This is the most dangerous time.

In Part II, we discuss recruitment, various technical details necessary for implementing the coup, the media, what to do about foreign powers, and more.

48 Thoughts

  1. Sorry Dr. Briggs. I love following your blog but I’m with Kirk Douglas on this one, and not with Bert Lancaster.

  2. I have followed your blog for a few years now and believe you to be an intelligent man. Recently though your inherent dislike of yourself is inherent in all of your articles. Additionally the material is approaching the old stressed regime of dissidence.

  3. In parts, sounds like some events that took place on a crisp and beautiful morning that is in recent memory.

  4. Briggs
    I respect you, and admire you, Hell, I even like you… But now I think you should step back a pace or two. What would old Bert have done? Well, in that film; “7 days in May”, I’d say he shot his bolt. Kirk; “Jiggs”, stopped him. Amen! I do not agree with Douglas’s real life politics by the way, but I consider him a great American.
    As a long time ex-pat I have often had to defend my love of country… What is it that I love?
    Is it the people? Those daytime TV addicted, addle pated melungeons? Hardly! Is it the “LAND”? Well, it’s a nice chunk of real estate, but dirt is dirt. No, what we Americans have is our Constitution. The Constitution is the core of American exceptionalism, and it is to that document I gladly swear fealty…

  5. …Americans will get what they deserve. Such must be the fate of a democratic republic. Right now, the mob seems to be in control. Will that be the end of us? I, for one, will not try to thwart this devine experiment.

  6. It seems far easier to move the existing mess towards a Trump family dynasty than do all that other crap. The Clintons and the deep state still have huge chunks of the government right now, and it is only the unique nature of Trump that led to his win.
    A middle-class guy from Peoria, for instance, would be sitting in jail right now, because he wouldn’t have enough money for the lawyers.
    Which is why all these talking heads who think Trump Jr. is stupid don’t know what they are talking about.
    Which is also why Trump Jr. is probably the best bet.
    Currently, they are locked in a fight just to be able to control the government at all. A multitude of criminal investigations need to happen, but the F.B.I. is busy ‘investigating’ the one they probably know they don’t need to, since Susan Rice and the Obama administration investigated the Trump campaign in real time.

    If the two parties get their way, Trump will have the Jesse Ventura experience, wherein little to nothing gets done because they won’t cooperate, and then one of these horrible politicians gets to be president again. Trump shows some signs of being smarter than Ventura, and the office of president has a bit more clout than the governorship of Minnesota.

    So, you really want monarchy, and Trump wins in 2020? You start working on Trump Jr. I know, you probably want some different family to work with, but start with what you’ve got. A properly orchestrated Constitution convention gets you where you want to go. Maybe that takes another generation.

    Of course, if you’ve got the ability to crown me now, by all means do so. But I suspect you’ll have to start somewhere, and get to what you want by improving the line.

  7. As the Pythons said, in my biography (?); “Only the true messiah would deny his own divinity”. I don’t know about Trump Jr. but for my part, “If elected, I will not serve!”

  8. Trust me on this, you don’t want royalty. And I know, because, in Holland, we still have royalty. Bunch of tossers.

    What you might want are kind of people that are able to become royalty because of them defending the people against tyranny.

  9. As Alice says,
    “Yes!! Your Majesty…”

    If you ask Trump nicely, I’m sure he’ll join in as king. I was only thinking this last night while watching him talking to the cubs. Trump’s doing a good job. These things take time.

    What you want is an Elizabeth. Preferably one with a two after her name. If I think of one I’ll write to her and tell her that an America is looking for a help. We haven’t decided yet wether you can have independence so it will help make the decision a bit less draconian. Wouldn’t do to be accused of a tyrannical takeover of part of the old colony.

    Ahem,
    “The proper rights and powers of the king are as guarantor of the rights of everybody else and without the King’s rights, nothing and no one is safe.”…
    …”It offers liberty to tender consciences in religion.”
    (Charles II Letter to parliament in favour of monarchy. )

    “Everybody now drinks the king’s health without any fear whereas before it was very private that a man may do it:”
    Samuel Pepys. (Diary)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW9Uudkx42g

  10. Forgotten here is that the States are not all suzerainties, yet, though some clearly are such. Should you decapitate the current government, the States have the Right and the Power to form the next one.

    Besides, if you’re going to have a government, you’re going to have to have politicians. Better, in my mind, to have power dispersed and competing against each other most of the time. I rather like what our Founders gave us. They were not dumb or naive. They knew human nature. They even warned us.

  11. All,

    For those who cannot engage in the spirit of the thing, should we ask Luttwak to withdraw his book, too?

    Lesser,

    Very true. But all of these folks can be waved aside. They will be seen as “newbies”. Anyway, they won’t be appointed instantly. We’ll already be there. We can even welcome them, as long as they abide by our martial law. They can be kept from meeting easily enough, at least in DC. If they are forced to congregate in small numbers in, say, Nebraska, they won’t be taken very seriously, especially as they won’t have military backing.

    Sander,

    Very true. But that’s because they see themselves as figureheads and not rule-givers.

    cdquarles,

    What the States do is Part II.

  12. Lee —

    Yet you understand exactly what Briggs is stating and can’t seem to get enough of his writing. Therefore, your statement is false due it being a performative contradiction.

  13. Briggs, if men with black sunglasses start following you, there are funny beeps on your telephone conversations, you get parts of your emails blotted out by ***’s, don’t be surprised.

  14. Bob,

    Or you could say that I was an occult employee of one of our intelligence agencies, trying to ferret out potential traitors.

  15. Bob K,
    It’s when they start following him into coffee shops and watching for hours, he’ll know he’s hit the big time.

  16. Decapitating the government at a SOTU address is the premise of the Kiefer Sutherland TV series “Designated Survivor”. Sutherland’s character, a minor cabinet member, is the “designated survivor”, sequestered by the Secret Serivce safely away from the capitol during the speech as insurance against just such an event. It was immediately obvious that the series plotline was borrowed/stolen from Clancy’s novel. The series started out interesting. Unfortunately, the series producers opted to take it into fantasyland, blaming the decapitation on domestic “alt-righters” instead of the only logically-plausible radical ideology that would attempt such a decapitation in the real world.

  17. Jimmy:

    “your statement is false”

    So

    “We can count ourselves unfortunate that this guy is no more conversant with military/political strategy than with science.”??

  18. Sorry, but I’m still a little steamed about this post. Just how would you plan an overthrow of the American government? It’s gotta’ remind you of the case against poor Richard Jewell, after the ’96 games in Atlanta. This is Leverenti Beria’s M.O.

  19. @Briggs

    They always start to see themselves as figure heads. That is as natural as getting wet walking in the rain.

    The William of Orange who later also became King of England was angry at him being just Stadhouder instead of a proper King. After all, if an Habsburg idiot cousin could be King, why not him?

  20. @brian,
    Why be steamed? Our Founders, it seems obvious to me, thought about this when they met in Philadelphia. Read some of James Madison’s notes and both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist’s essays.

  21. Royalty, like most of humanity, is susceptible to poz. Holland is very left wing, and I am sure most of the royalty breathe the same air as our true enemies- the bureaucrats. The modern state has created an environment in which bureaucratic traits are selected for. Even the Emperor of Japan is not immune.

    So it is very important to create a different environment, one in which nobility is selected for.

  22. @August Hurtel

    They do have a knack for seeing which way the wind is blowing. People were amazed that the future queen was introduced into the Dutch way by the former political leader of the seriously left-wing PSP, the Pacifist Socialist Party, even though that part never managed to get more than 3 or 4 out of the 150 seats in Parliament, early this century.

  23. The important point is that the Monarch has ultimate say over parliament’s formation and dissolution. This is a buffer. It also requires trust on part of the people in the system of their country and not an attitude of jealousy, French style.

    The military has the Queens commission along with all commissioned officers.
    Whilst military structures have their own tiresome ways of functioning and invented, hierarchy and red tape, probably, they are all with the aim of protecting the interests of the queen and the country.

    If Monarchs elsewhere don’t have ultimate power they are just figureheads.
    It is said that the British one is unique.
    See our recent general election where the clown Jeremy Corbin, aided by the date of the election where students voted in university towns which are traditionally conservative (and often voted more than once,), thought he could, with the help of his new student friends change everything. The media had a very good try and is still doing so.

    The media is the font of lies that will drive people mad if they can.

    The Queen is the head of the Church of England too. There by the grace of God, and why people say God save the Queen.
    History has established that this form of government and constitution works. Recent years has seen a very real attempt to alter it and has come quite some way. The House of Lords invasion being on my mind in particular.

    In order for a country to remain in stable state, people must be of roughly similar world view in enough quantities. There can be freedom for people to hold whatever view they wish and express it but importing en mass, numbers of people with a different culture is to import a new country on to old soil. It will cause problems and fighting will ensue if all other ordinary routes fail and there is still unrest.

    In America, the problem is also their blessing. That of land area. It is large enough for people to move away from people of a different kind. For people to form the weirdest and whackiest systems in communities and for attitudes to be as different as Texas and San Fransisco. These are really different countries. America is turning into a Europe, where different distinct countries form. Europe WAS slowly turning into an America.

    The old model is the right one. States can’t be united when they are so different.

    As to a coup, Briggs just likes fireworks.

  24. Joy, America always *was* a Europe. A Europe as it used to be when America was settled, and also one where the people always knew that the ‘king’ was just a man temporarily placed in a position of authority and not really any more ‘noble’ than any other man, by nature of man.

  25. From what I’ve heard there are now people inn government who are the designated survivors, i.e. they are not present when the rest of the government is. So a straightforward clancy event will not kill them. The people protecting the designated survivor will need to be in on the conspiracy. And that is a problem, because those people are much easier to watch for signs of trying to take over.

  26. Germany’s social-democratic government was so incompetent that one needed a wheelbarrow full of its money to buy a loaf of bread, yet it crushed the Beer Hall Putsch in a few hours and arrested all the coup plotters.

    Power in a democracy is too dispersed for a few guys to just walk in and take over. The surviving Nazis regrouped, built a nationwide organization, won a fair election, provoked their enemies into chimping out, then arrested the lot of them.

    Our electorate is more racially diverse, but Brazil’s is even more so, and they recently elected a President more right-wing than Trump by a wider margin of victory.

    What we’re witnessing now is the death throes of white liberalism, spiraling ever deeper into insanity as their non-procreative lifestyles doom them to irrelevance and eventual extinction. Politics will be more corrupt but also more realistic when they’re gone.

  27. In 2008, I predicted in a university exam, that the USA would have another civil war during the 21th century.

    At the time, I had difficulty defining the two factions, though recently it becomes much easier. One faction, the GOP, decided to sell its soul to Russia. They deny reality and promote Russian talking point as fact. The other the democrats refuse to see that the war has already started.

    That war is getting ever closer the more delusional people are getting in listening to Foxnews.

    The GOP impeached a president for lying about a blow job, somehow pushed by their moral superiority. Yet a president, who is already going to jail as soon as he is not president, for cheating in the 2016 election. Got caught cheating in the NEXT election, yet the GOP, which loss a good chunk of its members, somehow lost any sense of morality they might have had.

  28. Count me out. I think if we could get rid of the income tax (and the IRS), all the other problems would get worked out over time. (It’s not actually the income tax itself that is the problem, it’s the intrusiveness of the necessary means to enforce it.)

    But you got me thinking. Could the income tax be eliminated by a coup? A “bloodless coup”, where all the information that the IRS relies on to do its job is ‘decapitated’ in one swift stroke? Certainly the size of the ‘army’ required to pull this off is tiny in comparison to what would be required for a bloody coup.

  29. This post sounds quite shocking (it is) because most Americans share the same false idea of how America began

    It began with the colonists children seceding from Mom England and it included killing some of Mom’s sons who were the brothers of colonists and the hero of the secession is George Washington who was a traitor.

    At least this idea of a revolution is serious and doesn’t feature men boasting in the combox abut how adept and adroit they are with their own cache of weapons and how they can’t wait for the revolution etc.

    Do those combox patriots not know the cops are paid to hate them?

  30. It’s still not clear to me how exactly the 2016 election was won by “cheating.” All I’ve heard is that Russian trolls bought ads on Facebook “promoting dissension,” by hyping some progressive positions. About half the ads appeared after the election, sp could not plausibly have affected the outcome.

    If the Russians had hoped to promote dissension, they could not have hoped for more than the concerted efforts to impeach the president that began the day after the election and before even the inauguration. Who has been doing more to destroy faith in our electoral system?

  31. Actually, the Clinton impeachment articles charged Clinton with perjury (much more serious than merely lying) and obstruction of justice in the form of suborning perjury from witnesses. Actual crimes. There was evidence that he did these things and not merely matters of opinion. All of which were in a detailed report submitted to Congress.

    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-105hdoc310/pdf/CDOC-105hdoc310.pdf

    There were in total four articles of impeachment but only two were passed by the House. The votes themselves had members on both sides voting yea or nay.

    In contrast, the evidence in the impeachment of Trump is nonextant. No crimes at all and, of course, no witnesses. It’s telling that, unlike the preceding two impeachments, which had some bipartisanship, voting was strictly along party lines. This impeachment attempt is an indictment looking for a crime — the proverbial ham sandwich.

    Article one is an outright parody. Surely the Democrats know that Biden is far from a potential political rival to Trump. At least no more than a Little Leaguer rivals a MLB player. It’s just the latest in the long line of ridiculous claims starting with the Russia Collusion crap.

    On top of all that, there was a very apparent rush to impeach without waiting for claims of immunity to wind through the courts. Did the Democrats know they would lose in court? They claimed urgency but after the impeachment vote, to quote Monty Python, “immediately, nothing happened”. Where did all that urgency go?

    If you want an example of how a coup might happen in the U.S., simply look at what the Democrats have been trying to do. If they had both House and Senate they might have succeeded. And they have the nerve to stand in front of the country and claim it’s all to support the Republic and the Constitution. Nothing could be more ironic.

    Fortunately, all of this means Trump in 2020.
    But then, y’all knew that.

  32. Dav

    “Actually, the Clinton impeachment articles charged Clinton with perjury (much more serious than merely lying) and obstruction of justice in the form of suborning perjury from witnesses. Actual crimes. There was evidence that he did these things and not merely matters of opinion. All of which were in a detailed report submitted to Congress.”

    This still was about a blowjob, hardly a matter of national security.

    Trump is also impeached for obstruction of justice congress.

    The GOP held Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to transmit some document to congress. Even though he had transmitted millions of documents to congress before. The court ordered the Obama administration to provide those documents. (Nothing happened in this congress investigation.

    Clinton was ordered by court to give DNA. To my knowledge the court decision were respected and not even appealed.

    Trump refused all testimony and appealed cases were the ruling did not justify any appeals. There are ample precedent that forces those testimonies and production of documents. These are facts not opinions.

    On the Trump impeachment, i think you have a good pusher.

    Mulvaney said on live television that there was a quid pro quo.
    Sondland testified that everyone was on the case to put pressure on Zelensky. Pompeo Trump Giuliani Sondland Perry etc were all in on it.

    Sondland claim that Trump told him there was no quid pro quo only happened after Trump learned of the complaint to congress.

    The money was released only after the complaint was known to congress and something like 30 millions still hasn’t been given.

    Trump doesn’t want to meet Zelensky at the White House because they are corrupt. Yet he has no problem meeting with Russians which is even more corrupt than Ukraine.

  33. The usual Sylly-ness.

    This still was about a blowjob, hardly a matter of national security.
    What does national security have to do with it?
    Roger Stone got a lot of time in prison for lying about an inconsequential e-mail. Martha Stewart severed time for something equally silly.
    Moral: Perjury is a crime.
    Clinton was accused of perjury therefore he was accused of a crime. The Constitution mentions “crime” in connection with impeachment. Doesn’t say anything about policy disagreements.

    Sondland testified that everyone was on the case to put pressure on Zelensky.
    But then later clarified that it was merely his impression and he had no direct evidence.

    Sondland claim that Trump told him there was no quid pro quo only happened after Trump learned of the complaint to congress.
    Sure. Means the thought never crossed Trump’s mind until he learned of the complaint. Do you often deny doing things before being accused? Well, maybe you do. You’re not very bright.

    As for “quid pro quo”, why was there no outrage over the following? Seems this is normal practice. Or is this something only Democrats are allowed to do?
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html

    And then we come to the “obstruction of Congress” charge in the second article. That actually isn’t a crime. In any case, the courts were bypassed; so effectively Trump wasn’t permitted to appeal any subpoena. Biden has publicly stated he wouldn’t comply with a Senate subpoena unless directed by the courts. The very thing that Trump was accused of doing. So, why is it OK for Biden but not Trump?

    —-

    As I said before: no crime, no evidence, and based solely on hearsay “testimony”. Nothing but opinion and disagreement over policy. Nancy Pelosi admitted that the impeachment was 2+ years in the making. IOW: long before the Ukrainian phone call. The Democrats think the call was a smoking gun but it’s more like a dripping water pistol. An indictment looking for a crime.

    Anna Palmer, POLITICO: One of the biggest criticisms of the process has been the speed at which the House Democrats are moving.
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: [With incredulity] Speed?
    Palmer: Seriously, though — seriously.
    Pelosi: It’s been going on for 22 months, OK? Two and a half years, actually.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/18/pelosi-impeachment-trump-vote-086468

    This is going to backfire horribly on the Dems. They had their best shot at making a case and blew it. Now Pelosi seems intent on keeping it fresh in everybody’s mind while contemplating the next election. Wow!

  34. Dav,

    “What does national security have to do with it?
    Roger Stone got a lot of time in prison for lying about an inconsequential e-mail.”

    It wasn’t an inconsequential lie. The lie was to protect Trump from looking bad.

    Mueller found over 100 meeting between the Trump campaign. Collusion was found, contact where numerous, the help was welcomed. What they couldn’t do, was to prove criminal behavior. There were 2 reasons for it: Many people lied about those event, and documents that could have proven the facts were destroyed.

    ”There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a “thing of value” within the meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted “willfully,” i.e., with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation,” Page 186.

    “But then later clarified that it was merely his impression and he had no direct evidence.”

    Yeah that’s credible. He got caught telling the truth, so he had to walk it back. Ever more reason to have him to testify under oath in the Senate trial.

    “Sure. Means the thought never crossed Trump’s mind until he learned of the complaint. Do you often deny doing things before being accused? Well, maybe you do. You’re not very bright.”

    Are you really typing this with a straight face. I imagine you were so contorted typing this that you were left typing with your toes.

    “As for “quid pro quo”, why was there no outrage over the following? Seems this is normal practice. Or is this something only Democrats are allowed to do?”

    First, it was not the only the democrat doing it. The request to fire Shokin was made by the approval of numerous Republican Senator in Congress.

    https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-durbin-shaheen-and-senate-ukraine-caucus-reaffirm-commitment-help

    It was also required by the European Nation.

    It came following a case in England court where the Crown had frozen the President’s of Burisma account. Which they had to forgo after Shokin refused to provide documents about Burisma’s corruptionto the Crown.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-ties.html

    Biden was actually working against his own son interest when he requeste Shokin removal.

    “As I said before: no crime, no evidence, and based solely on hearsay “testimony”.”

    Most of the 17 witnesses provided direct knowledge testimonies.

    Sondland, Vindman, Hill, Holmes, Morrison, Volker, Pence aid, that women from OMB, etc. were all direct witness, that confirmed each other. Sondland confirmed Holmes, and Hill. Hill confirmed Vindman. Vindman and Pence aide confirmed each other testimony, and that before they were made public.

    Other first hand witness were all prevented to testify. In fact, even those who did testify were doing so against the White House orders.

    “This is going to backfire horribly on the Dems. They had their best shot at making a case and blew it. Now Pelosi seems intent on keeping it fresh in everybody’s mind while contemplating the next election. Wow!”

    You mean like it did in 2018. Clinton was unpopular enough to justify some to not go voting. Now Trump seems to convince people to go vote.

  35. Sondland, Vindman, Hill, Holmes, Morrison, Volker, Pence aid, that women from OMB, etc. were all direct witness, that confirmed each other.
    And when directly asked what evidence they could provide — other than their conjectures — they all said none.

    Other first hand witness were all prevented to testify. In fact, even those who did testify were doing so against the White House orders.
    Meaning the Democrats had no witnesses of any wrongdoing.

    Most of the 17 witnesses provided direct knowledge testimonies.
    Nope. Not a single one.

    Biden was actually working against his own son interest when he requeste Shokin removal.
    Yeah, sure he was.

    BTW: your link to Portman didn’t mention Shokin at all and even your NYT article said:

    But the credibility of the vice president’s anticorruption message may have been undermined by the association of his son, Hunter Biden, with one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies, Burisma Holdings, and with its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, who was Ukraine’s ecology minister under former President Viktor F. Yanukovych before he was forced into exile.

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/hunter-biden-was-going-to-be-interviewed-in-burisma-investigation-former-prosecutor_3169056.html

    Former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin said that his office prepared in the summer of 2016 to interview then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden as part of a money laundering probe into Hunter Biden’s employer, the Burisma energy company.

    That’s when the pressure to stop investigating Hunter Biden’s possible role in the alleged crimes increased, Shokin told One America News.

    Strange that Hunter also got a cushy job with China, too. China was another of Joe’s “concerns”. Now there are more allegations against Hunter coming out. ‘Quid Pro Joe’ must be running scared.

    I notice he wasn’t in the Biden family Christmas photo. Wonder why.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-missing-from-family-christmas-photo
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-missing-from-family-christmas-photo
    — —

    I know. You’re just jealous that we have a real President while you’re stuck with soy boy Twinkle Toes dancing around in Black Face. It’s turned your brown eyes green. Eat your heart out!

  36. YOS,

    Ever heard of operation AJAX.

    Operation that toppled the democratically elected Iranian government and put in place the Shah of Iran.

    Not that much different than what the Russian did. The US printed fake news in their newspaper and it was done.

  37. “I know. You’re just jealous that we have a real President while you’re stuck with soy boy Twinkle Toes dancing around in Black Face. It’s turned your brown eyes green. Eat your heart out!”

    Yet, it is your President that the world laugh at, including Russia.

    This is why Lavarov were really not sad to say that Russia’s meddling in the US election wasn’t discussed in the meeting. Even after the white house said they did.

    —————————————————————————–

    ”Quid Pro Joe’ must be running scared”

    And the Trump family that get trademark in Argentina? Ivanka trademark in China? China investment in a Trump project (500K or 5 billions)

  38. I see you’ve run out of things to say. Not as if you had anything cogent in the first place, though.

    it is your President that the world laugh at
    Only in your dreams, darling, which BTW are all wet. Perhaps you should forego those chocolate covered oysters before bedtime.

    They are laughing with him.

    You do seem rather obsessed with Trump.
    TDS must really suck.

  39. Dav,

    Unlike you I work 6 days a week.

    Work is something you don’t seem to have done in a while

  40. I would think being irrational was a quality instead of a full-time job. Or is it fool-time? What about when you aren’t “working”? Are you then “rational”?

    What’s your point?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *