After The Coup, What Then?

After The Coup, What Then?
Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,


That the Trump presidency is bedeviled is undeniable.



As President Donald Trump flew off for August at his Jersey club, there came word that Special Counsel Robert Mueller III had impaneled a grand jury and subpoenas were going out to Trump family and campaign associates.

The jurors will be drawn from a pool of citizens in a city Hillary Clinton swept with 91 percent of the vote. Trump got 4 percent.

Whatever indictments Mueller wants, Mueller gets.

Thanks to a media that savages him ceaselessly, Trump is down to 33 percent approval in a Quinnipiac University poll and below 40 percent in most of the rest.

Before Trump departed D.C., The Washington Post ran transcripts of his phone conversations with the leaders of Mexico and Australia.

Even Obama administration veterans were stunned.

So, it is time to ask: If this city brings Trump down, will the rest of America rejoice?

What will be the reaction out there in fly-over country, that land where the “deplorables” dwell who produce the soldiers to fight our wars? Will they toast the “free press” that brought down the president they elected, and in whom they had placed so much hope?

My guess: The reaction will be one of bitterness, cynicism, despair, a sense that the fix is in, that no matter what we do, they will not let us win. If Trump is brought down, American democracy will take a pasting. It will be seen as a fraud. And the backlash will poison our politics to where only an attack from abroad, like 9/11, will reunite us.

Our media preen and posture as the defenders of democracy, devoted to truth, who provide us round-the-clock protection from tyranny. But half the nation already sees the media as a propaganda arm of a liberal establishment that the people have rejected time and again.

Consider the Post’s publication of the transcripts of Trump’s calls with Mexico’s president and Australia’s prime minister.

When reporter Greg Miller got these transcripts, his editors, knowing they would damage Trump, plastered them on Page 1.

The Post was letting itself be used by a leaker engaged in disloyal and possibly criminal misconduct. Yet the Post agreed to provide confidentiality and to hide the Trump-hater’s identity.

This is what we do, says the Post. People have a right to know if President Trump says one thing at rallies about Mexico paying for the wall and another to the president of Mexico. This is a story.

But there is a far larger story here, of which this Post piece is but an exhibit. It is the story of a concerted campaign, in which the anti-Trump media publish leaks, even criminal leaks, out of the FBI, CIA, NSA and NSC, to bring down a president whom the Beltway media and their deep-state collaborators both despise and wish to destroy.

Did Trump collude with Putin to defeat Clinton, the Beltway media demand to know, even as they daily collude with deep-state criminals to bring down the president of the United States.

And if there is an unfolding silent coup by the regime Americans repudiated in 2016 — to use security leaks and the lethal weapon of a special counsel to overturn the election results — is that not a story worth covering as much as what Trump said to Pena Nieto?

Do the people not have a right know who are the snakes collaborating with the Never-Trump press to bring down their head of state? Is not discovering the identities of deep-state felons a story that investigative reporters should be all over?

If Greg Miller is obligated to protect his source, fine. But why are other journalists not exposing his identity?

The answer suggests itself. This is a collaborative enterprise, where everyone protects everyone else’s sources, because all have the same goal: the dumping of Trump. If that requires collusion with criminals, so be it.

The Justice Department is now running down the leaks, and the ACLU’s Ben Wizner is apoplectic:

“Every American should be concerned about the Trump administration’s threat to step up its efforts against whistleblowers and journalists. A crackdown on leaks is a crackdown on the free press and on democracy.”​

That’s one way to put it. Another is that some of these “whistleblowers” are political criminals who reject the verdict of the American electorate in 2016 and are out to overturn it. And the aforementioned “journalists” are their enablers and collaborators.

And if, as Wizner’s asserts, protecting secrets is tantamount to a “crackdown on the free press and democracy,” no wonder the free press and democracy are falling into disrepute all over the world.

By colluding, the mainstream media, deep state, and the special prosecutor’s button men, with a license to roam, may bring down yet another president. So doing, they will validate John Adams’s insight:


“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
 
They know we will be angry but they are betting that in the end, we will yield graciously because that's what the sheeple and their "conservative" representatives have always done.

I'm not sure what would happen. Riots are not our style and why would we attack people in our own communities when the enemy is in DC and NYC? The whole thing frightens me. A lot of people are past fed up. Telling them their vote didn't count could easily be the last straw.
 
had the politicians been playing for the most votes... they would have done things differently.
that is the excuse of losers. there is always an excuse. the people spoke and in over 90% of the country Trump won. hillary was crushed in the EC. her strategy sucked. her health sucked and she had no idea how to talk to white people or those who pay taxes. Like the rest of your party. its no wonder she could not come up with theme. Hate those with jobs or hate those who were born here... was not really going to work. Even for most people in her party.



Trump is the president,so their vote did count.Their vote counted disproportionately to other voters since Trumps opponent got 3 million more votes.
 
hillary was crushed in the EC.

No, she wasn't. Obama and bill are better examples of crushing in the ec.


upload_2017-8-8_17-53-14.jpeg
 
she was crushed... she was supposed to win. she lost decisively.
the contest was for most ec votes not votes.

I am not sure the original states would have agreed to a straight up popular vote.

What you propose is an entirely different system.
We would never give CA that much power... unless we here in California actually stop voter fraud 100%.

I vote here. Its harder to get a beer than it is to vote. They don't check ID.
Until we do you can't claim hillary won a majority of real voters.
Plus... there are a hell of a lot more than 10 million illegals in america.

I would bet there are at least 10 million illegal immigrants in CA alone.



No, she wasn't. Obama and bill are better examples of crushing in the ec.


View attachment 176524
 
mark-henry-finger.gif


Nice bait, but legally executed trial/impeachment proceedings on a branch that's for the most part impartial and often times right leaning and a legislative that's dominated by the right is a far cry from being at a disadvantage.

Also, I'll be damned if a defense lawyer is going to allow a left leaning jury in this case.

You kept saying Russia was all smoke and mirrors, and very well could be; but your elected officials decided to grant carte blanche to Mueller so don't cry foul if dirt is dug up.

Whatever happened to "what part of the word illegal is hard to understand?" A felon can't vote but you're ok w/potentially having one in the highest office?
 
Back
Top