TellyKNeasuss
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,785
Well, my roommate has been watching a DVD of the American TV series "House of Cards".
Trump's Coup d'état.
- Thread starter Mader Levap
- Start date
- Status
Well, my roommate has been watching a DVD of the American TV series "House of Cards".
That's a better choice than watching Trump's presidency.
Cavemonster
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,701
You're responding to "What makes election results official and legal". Previous court orders and subpoenas were official and legal. Trump just ignored them with no consequences.
If Trump ignores the official and legal election result, and he makes sure the acting heads of all relevant agencies ignore that as well. Exactly as he and his administration have ignored many official and legal findings from congress and courts, then how does a Biden administration enact power?
Neither congress, nor Scotus needs to be involved, just the heads of every relevant department within the executive branch.
Lets say Trump tomorrow puts someone who agrees with him that he is the rightful president as head of each relevant part of the executive branch.
He is unquestionably in the active process of doing exactly this.
What specific action does congress take to undo that? Or the Scotus? They can make pronouncements or judgements, but so what? Trump and his administration have ignored those before, what changes now?
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
If it were to get to that point, it would come down to the army, because at that point you no longer have a government of laws. The winner would be the one with the guns.
ETA: And, the possibility of that happening is not even in my head as a possible scenario, except as a hypothetical. Nevertheless, it's frightening that it's even something being discussed. It should be something so far out of reach that the mere discussion of it should be in conspiracy theories, or perhaps in Philosophy, under the category of the true nature of government.
Last edited:
Cavemonster
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,701
Our executive branch has flouted the law for four years. We don't have a government of laws.
We're just Wiley Coyote, floating on in the air after the ledge broke off and won't fall until we look down.
If we're luck, we can pinwheel our way back before real gravity kicks in.
If it comes down to the army, who commands them? Who in the army has a protocol of deciding who the true president is? Who in that position is safe from being fired and replaced? Trump has replaced senior defense officials in the past week.
Who can he not replace?
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Who can he not replace? The guy holding the gun. Unless he has loyalists holding more and bigger guns.
In all seriousness, I think that statements like your first really exaggerate the reality of our world at this point in time. Whatever legal issues may have come up over the last four years, they aren't anything like refusing to step down after losing an election. Also, whatever legal issues have come up over the last four years, when SCOTUS has issued a court order, the administration has followed.
As long as the authority of SCOTUS is respected, we're fine.
There are theoretical possibilities that could arise. We could talk about various what ifs that involve what if certain people within the government ceased to respect the Constitution in a meaningful way. That could include Supreme Court Justices ignoring the law, or it could mean Congress refusing to seat Biden electors even after a clear win in a state. It could mean all sorts of things, but it won't.
Most Americans still have some respect for government, for law, and for the Constitution. A lot of them don't understand all of it, and they say some very stupid things about it, but when all is said and done, there's only so much cheating you can get away with before enough people shut you down. I hope we don't reach that limit.
I'm having visuals of Biden being sworn in at the Lincoln Memorial while Trump is also being sworn in at the Rose Garden at the same time. News coverage jumping back and forth between the two. The only audio from the Rose Garden would be from Trump and the Judge's lapel mikes, lest the news mikes pick up the sounds of protesters and police battling it out at the fences.
Possibly even with both of them somehow snagging an SC Justice to do it, although it is more likely that Trump will find some lower tier Judge to do it while Biden actually gets John Roberts. Giuliani and company would spin madly to explain away an SC defeat.
I don't think that would actually happen, but I do think it is possible, just barely.
Possibly even with both of them somehow snagging an SC Justice to do it, although it is more likely that Trump will find some lower tier Judge to do it while Biden actually gets John Roberts. Giuliani and company would spin madly to explain away an SC defeat.
I don't think that would actually happen, but I do think it is possible, just barely.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
The way I see our current situation, we have elections, and we have processes on how to conduct those elections. Part of those processes is that there can be lawsuits and challenges. Votes aren't just counted, they are counted, and sometimes recounted, and hearings are held to get everyone agreeing that yes, it really happened. And if they can't agree, there are more processes to resolved disputes. These are all important, because sometimes elections are too close to call, or things happen, and the disputes have to be resolved.
We're in that phase now There are processes for disputing the results. Trump is losing one after another. It's annoying, but he is within his rights to do everything he has done so far. It's kind of like the way that a death row inmate has a right to appeal, and often the right to appeal the appeal, and the right to introduce challenges to all aspects of the procedures. It's important that those rights exist, and that those rights be respected. However, eventually, he runs out of appeals.
Trump is on political death row right now, filing appeal after appeal, but the case against him is too strong. In the end, one court or another will rule, and it will be over. If SCOTUS says he has to step down on January 20, Trump won't be able to convince Bill Barr to have all of their political enemies rounded up.
But......let's keep an eye on him, just in case. He's just the sort of jerk who might try it, and cause all sorts of grief in the process.
We're in that phase now There are processes for disputing the results. Trump is losing one after another. It's annoying, but he is within his rights to do everything he has done so far. It's kind of like the way that a death row inmate has a right to appeal, and often the right to appeal the appeal, and the right to introduce challenges to all aspects of the procedures. It's important that those rights exist, and that those rights be respected. However, eventually, he runs out of appeals.
Trump is on political death row right now, filing appeal after appeal, but the case against him is too strong. In the end, one court or another will rule, and it will be over. If SCOTUS says he has to step down on January 20, Trump won't be able to convince Bill Barr to have all of their political enemies rounded up.
But......let's keep an eye on him, just in case. He's just the sort of jerk who might try it, and cause all sorts of grief in the process.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Nice cherry picks.
If you look at Brad Heath's Twitter feed, you get the idea all he was saying in that Tweet was "this is Trump's plan".
We all know that.
Try the feed from here to see who all Brad retweeted. It's quite revealing.
Here are some samples of what he chose to retweet (they got out of order, sorry):
First watch Heraldo Rivera on the Fox News clip.
George Conway said:
The Reuters' article is the same, reporting without much opinion. Go to Reuters' web page and find any stories at all that say Trump's plan is moving forward. I couldn't find any.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
The Executive Branch? Who are these people and what power do they have? The lady who wouldn't sign off giving Biden office space and money is reportedly looking for another job and she's being sued.
OK, extraordinary as in almost impossible?
At what point do you come over to the light side?
We have important stuff to fret about over here like the CT believers who open carry.We could discuss how Trump is MIA. Speculate about how downtrodden he must be feeling about now.
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
You have earned your light side badge!
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Yeah, no.
They would need some sort of military force to keep Biden from sending the SS in to escort them all out of the building.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
So maybe stop discussing it? You admit it's no more than a hypothetical.
You're almost there. Move from barely to not worth fretting and you'll get a light side badge too.
Cavemonster
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,701
The USSS report to their director, currently James Murray, a Trump appointee. If Trump wished to replace Murray (if for some reason he believed Murray to be insufficiently loyal), he could at any time between now and Jan 20th. The position can be directly appointed by the president with no Senate confirmation needed.
The USSS do not report directly to whoever congress, the Supreme Court or anyone else calls the President. They report to their director, who can be anyone Trump would like.
Cavemonster
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,701
Side note, the Secret Service don't like the initialism "SS" for obvious reasons. The official shortening is USSS.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
You sound like you got that from McConnell. What does it mean, within his rights? For how long? And how does that give him a right not to start the transition process.
I would go more with, technically he hasn't broken any laws yet. But "his rights" pretty much ended with the last failed court case.
Does Trump have "a right" to send Rudy out with failed legal cases and feed a very serious CT that is likely to end up provoking violence and doesn't stand a chance in hell of resulting in any legal path to the WH?
Sure, we all supposedly have free speech rights if you mean that.
How should we define "eventually" in this case?
Keep an eye on him, sure. What are we looking for exactly?
angrysoba
Philosophile
You're almost there. Move from barely to not worth fretting and you'll get a light side badge too.
Guys, relax. It is merely an *attempted* coup!
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
And you think the department is filled with department loyalists that would follow orders from the director in light of reality?
I don't see it.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
No light side badge for you.
It is an incompetent, failed coup. When does it move from attempted to failed?
Cavemonster
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,701
I'm not sure who is in the department right now, but Trump is fully empowered to, totally legally, make sure it's 100% loyal to him by Jan 20.
There is no law stopping him from firing every agent tomorrow and replacing them with Proud Boys.
Given that Trump has both the motivation and the opportunity to do so, why would he not?
- Status