Coup and counter coup?

[EnglishPete]

I found an interesting article here reflecting on what appears to be going on behind the scenes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.unz.com/jpetras/the-coup-against-trump-and-his-military-wall-street-defense/

[EnglishPete]

I think the article is certainly right is its analysis of what forces are lining up on which side e.g. the CIA, much of the corporate elite and the 'mainstream' media are clearly lining up with the Democratic Party side whilst the FBI, Military and parts of the financial elites are lining up with Trump.

What are people's thoughts on this?

[EnglishPete]

I would be beyond furious if SJWs and Greens try and coup Trump out of office.

Well its clearly what they have been trying to do already. As part of this effort we have seen a blitz of anti-Trump propaganda in the 'mainstream' media questioning the legitimacy of his election, Anti Trump demonstrations organised by the usual suspects, the recount campaign and the recent 'faithless electors' campaign. Parallel to all this, and forming a crucial part of the propaganda campaign is the CIA's efforts to brand Trump's win the reselt of 'Russian hacks' and to call Trump a 'Russian puppet'.

Now the United States is a country where there is great social and psychological attachment to the Constitution and to doing things the constitutional way. This would make a coup done by extra legal means difficult. What would make such an extra legal coup impossible is that fact that Trump has spend over a year cultivating the support of the Military, the Police and the Border control and he seems to have been very successful at it. Military, police, FBI, Border control etc all seem to be very firmly in the Trump camp. All the security forces apart from the CIA in fact. (And as an extra bonus he's got the support of the NRA as well).

So an extra legal coup is out of the question. So it has to be done by legal means. This is not unknown in the Western hemisphere recent as such 'legal coups' have taken place in recent years in places like Brazil (only this year) and Honduras.

If they can find some route to preventing Trump from taking office that would be preferred, clearly that's what the, rather desperate recount and 'Hamilton electors' efforts were about. But failing that the next step is impeachment. As we have seen this year in Brazil, and indeed as we saw in the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings, the way legislators vote in impeachment cases is much more to do with the politics of the case rather than the rights and wrongs of the case. Removal from office by impeachment would be difficult though as the Democrats are 19 short of the 67 senate votes needed to remove a President from office. So perhaps another legal or quasi legal means might be sought, as happened with the 2009 Honduras Coup that was supported by the Honduran Supreme Court.

[EnglishPete]

Stop.

Stop what?

We're already seen people backing the recount effort and the 'Hamilton electors' effort to prevent Trump taking office. There has already been talk, including on this forum, of getting rid of Trump through impeachment. The CIA has clearly been on the the Clinton side in this election, just as the FBI and other security forces have been on the Trump side. The CIA, along with the Democratic party and the liberal 'mainstream' media have all been promoting the idea that Trump benefitted from an illegitimate Russian intervention in the campaign through hacking.

These are all facts, what exactly is it you want me to stop?

[EnglishPete]

Stop.

Stop what? EnglishPete is just expressing concern about what the article describes.

Exactly.

Or to put in another way. When we see an impeachment in a place like Brazil this year or Paraguay in 2012 take a president out of office. When we see the Honduran Supreme Court intervene against a sitting president in 2009. Or the Venezuelan Supreme Court block a Presidential recall vote just this year. When we see things like this in Latin America most people understand that the way these things go is not simply due to technical, purely legal reasons but is rather to do with major political conflicts within those countries, that propaganda plays a major role in these processes and that some of the political actors, and many of the political motives, are hidden from public view.

I would suggest that its silly to image that the US is immune to such things.

[EnglishPete]

Pete, would you consider it to be a coup if Trump did a clearly illegal action and was impeached and convicted?

That's not how it works, as the other examples I mentioned clearly show. Plenty of US Presidents have done things that could be considered grounds for impeachment. If a majority in a legislature do not want a President impeached and convicted he won't be, no matter how guilty he is.

If they do want to impeach him and have the number for a guilty verdict that is what will happen even if they have to cook the charge up. that's the reality of the world, guilt or innocence will have very little to do with it.

[EnglishPete]

Pete, would you consider it to be a coup if Trump did a clearly illegal action and was impeached and convicted?

That's not how it works, as the other examples I mentioned clearly show. Plenty of US Presidents have done things that could be considered grounds for impeachment. If a majority in a legislature do not want a President impeached and convicted he won't be, no matter how guilty he is.

If they do want to impeach him and have the number for a guilty verdict that is what will happen even if they have to cook the charge up. that's the reality of the world, guilt or innocence will have very little to do with it.

I know that's not how it usually works, if it was a situation of clear guilt he would just resign. However, I feel like a lot of you Trump supporters are ready to fight for him no matter what, even if he breaks the laws.

No the point I'm making is that it doesn't matter whether Presidents break the law or not, that's not a reason Presidents resign. They can be as innocent as the snow (unlikely) and if there is a majority who want to impeach him and enough votes to find him guilty he will be found guilty, a charge will be dreamed up if necessary. then he might resign to avoid impeachment (as Nixon did). He can be guilty as hell and if the votes aren't there for an impeachment or for a guilty verdict then he will serve out his term with no impeachment.

To give a little example and contrast from history

Watergate building in burgled

Result: nothing is taken

Burglers get caught

Nixon finds out and covers it up, claiming executive privilege to do this

Woodward and Bernstein uncover the cover up.

Woodward and Bernstein are proclaimed heroes by the Democrats and the liberal media. Nixon is proclaimed a cheat and a crook by the Democrats and liberal media. Impeachment is planned and Nixon resigns to avoid this.


Thirty years earlier


Communist agents infiltrate the US State Department and other government bodies

Result: Serious secrets are stolen by some agents and given to America's enemies. Other agents successfully work to influence policy in a way that helps the Soviet Union and does severe harm to the free world and the human race as a whole

FBI uncovers and identifies these communist agents

Truman finds out and covers it up, claiming executive privilege to do this

Joe McCarthy uncovers the cover up

Truman is proclaimed a hero and the Democrats start immediate attempts to railroad McCarthy who they and the liberal media proclaim a crook and a liar. This eventually succeeds four years later.


You see what I mean?

[EnglishPete]

No the point I'm making is that it doesn't matter whether Presidents break the law or not, that's not a reason Presidents resign. They can be as innocent as the snow (unlikely) and if there is a majority who want to impeach him and enough votes to find him guilty he will be found guilty, a charge will be dreamed up if necessary. then he might resign to avoid impeachment (as Nixon did). He can be guilty as hell and if the votes aren't there for an impeachment or for a guilty verdict then he will serve out his term with no impeachment.

To give a little example and contrast from history

Watergate building in burgled

Result: nothing is taken

Burglers get caught

Nixon finds out and covers it up, claiming executive privilege to do this

Woodward and Bernstein uncover the cover up.

Woodward and Bernstein are proclaimed heroes by the Democrats and the liberal media. Nixon is proclaimed a cheat and a crook by the Democrats and liberal media. Impeachment is planned and Nixon resigns to avoid this.


Thirty years earlier


Communist agents infiltrate the US State Department and other government bodies

Result: Serious secrets are stolen by some agents and given to America's enemies. Other agents successfully work to influence policy in a way that helps the Soviet Union and does severe harm to the free world and the human race as a whole

FBI uncovers and identifies these communist agents

Truman finds out and covers it up, claiming executive privilege to do this

Joe McCarthy uncovers the cover up

Truman is proclaimed a hero and the Democrats start immediate attempts to railroad McCarthy who they and the liberal media proclaim a crook and a liar. This eventually succeeds four years later.


You see what I mean?

This post explains a lot about you.

Not sure what this is supposed to 'explain about me'? That I know about history perhaps?

[EnglishPete]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/29/matt-drudge-suggests-us-government-could-be-attack/

Obama and CIA attacking opposition, pro-Trump media perhaps. Alex Jones has reported that InfoWars  has recently suffered from similar attacks.

[EnglishPete]

If ever a party in Atlas deserved a prize for assembling the most dumb set of people, it is the Republican party.

Some of the comments are beautiful in a funny way - This thread is hillarious!

And yet you will realise that everything I've said in this thread is factual. Your amused response a reaction to some cognitive dissonance perhaps.

[EnglishPete]

What makes the Truman/Nixon comparison so appropriate for illustrasting this point is that Truman's offence was clearly so much worse than Nixon. Truman not only covered up communist infiltration of the State Department but he allowed it to continue even after the FBI had brought it to his attention. The Watergate failed burglary had already happened when Nixon found out about it at which point no real damage had been done.

Truman's offence was far worse yet Nixon was the one impeached. Presidential impeachments are all about politics, very little to do with the level of guilt.

[EnglishPete]

What makes the Truman/Nixon comparison so appropriate for illustrasting this point is that Truman's offence was clearly so much worse than Nixon. Truman not only covered up communist infiltration of the State Department but he allowed it to continue even after the FBI had brought it to his attention. The Watergate failed burglary had already happened when Nixon found out about it at which point no real damage had been done.

Truman's offence was far worse yet Nixon was the one impeached. Presidential impeachments are all about politics, very little to do with the level of guilt.

Reagan got away with Iran Contract even though it was clearly an impeachable act but the GOP voted to impeach Clinton over a BJ

Another good illustration of my point. Whether a President is impeached or not is everything to do with politics and nothing to do with 'blind' justice. That was true of Truman, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and indeed Obama.

[EnglishPete]

Reports that the malware used for the hack was not only publicly available but was also Ukrainian. Ukrainian false flag operation perhaps?

http://www.infowars.com/security-expert-us-govts-alleged-russian-hack-appears-to-trace-back-to-ukraine/

[EnglishPete]

Reports that the malware used for the hack was not only publicly available but was also Ukrainian. Ukrainian false flag operation perhaps?

http://www.infowars.com/security-expert-us-govts-alleged-russian-hack-appears-to-trace-back-to-ukraine/

"the malware" --- do you even know what "the malware" this is referring to is? Based on what the JAR report says, this is very likely a small script package meant to give the perpetrators access to hacked online resources (servers, exploited websites, etc), which are meant to be used to host files the targets are emailed links to in hopes of tricking them into revealing their passwords and/or delivering exploit payloads to infect their device. If you want a RL analogy, think of this as a garage door opener for hackers, and the stuff they put in the garage as the actual tools/desktop malware that will be distributed & the server-side components that it will talk to.

This particular project (PAS) is not "the malware" that was crawling through the DNC's network(s). It's a third party tool provided for free on known malware-oriented forum(s) primarily for CIS-originating hackers/script kiddies/etc. Chinese and Russian espionage groups that have been caught pilfering data from corporate and other govt systems in unrelated cases have been seen using 3rd party tools as well. It's not that uncommon.

--

Also I wanted to add, I think it is silly that the US Govt released a report that included this little piece of code. That's like saying, "hey, we have proof they attacked us with a specialized nuclear bomb. To prove that, here is a sample of it: The screwdriver they used to attach the control panel to the nuclear device!"

The reality is we'll probably never get anything useful from them because intelligence agencies pretty much never reveal any information that could in any way compromise or reveal their operational capabilities, which gives them almost nothing to offer the public.

Well I was going to reply with a quote from the original article that the above linked article is based on as the authors seem to know their stuff and I would be interested to hear an expert second opinion

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/

However I've spotted the edit you've made to your reply and I've noticed you've said that there's nothing wrong with the article. The program which the official report provided a sample of was indeed the publically available Ukrainian one.

You ask the question as to why the report would provide evidence that turned out to a whole lot of nothing and answered it by saying that they can't show the real evidence as its secret. Well that doesn't answer the question as to why the report provided some bullsh**t evidence instead of just saying that they can't provide details of the real evidence for security purposes. It does look like they're trying to bullsh**t people. Since disinformation is part of what they do and since the CIA leadership has been clearly leaning towards the Dems in this election it doesn't really add plausibility to their claims.

[EnglishPete]

Who knows why they didn't, but I'm sure it was implied. Connection logs and other logs of network activity is exactly something the NSA would have on this based on the Snowden leaks of their various mass collection programs/search engines, such as XKeyscore. Considering the DNC/DCCC malware communicated with at least some known assets, and sent data from undoubtedly a high-priority network bloc, I'm sure they have logs of this, but it's never something they would release nor acknowledge. It is NSA policy to deny anything regarding those types of operations/programs. They won't discuss any of it even when the whole world knows it exists.

I'm simply saying that link you posted really amounts to a whole lot of nothing itself. I don't think it really adds or subtracts to this argument, hence my responses here.

So you're saying that the CIA would have found the evidence but can't let us know about it. And you know that they've found the evidence because you can just trust them. Well the history of governments lying and inventing false 'outrages' to make an excuse for picking fights with other countries is far to long for me ever to simply trust such a claim on faith.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh I certainly wouldn't trust such a claim from a Trump administration or from any other administration, US, UK or any other country. Given the long history of governments lying about such things I frankly think its a little foolish for others to be so trusting.