10 ms·
We're in a Permanent Coup
- throwaway5752 7y agoThis ignores the Bill Clinton impeachment, it ignores the Behghazi investigation (intended to damage Hillary Clinton, just as the Ukraine calls were intended to damage Biden). It ignores the actual substance of the Trump administrations wrongdoings. It ignores the profound difference in respect for the process in the former cases and in this administration. It is a crappy meta-analysis and is extremely disappointing from someone of Taibbi's caliber.
- aisengard 7y agoI've come to expect nothing less than grifters like Taibbi. He thinks he ate the red pill.
- zipwitch 7y agoJournalist Marcy Wheeler already did a nice takedown of everything wrong with this piece from Taibbi. One example: "Those abuses, the ones he's outraged about? With very few exceptions, they all happened in 2017, under Trump. There's good reason to suspect one of them came bc Trump demanded FBI crack down on leaks (a crackdown Taibbi pretends to be ignorant about)." https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1182792966416621568 https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1182792966416621568
- crooked-v 7y agoPeople revealing constant incompetence and criminality at the highest levels of government are not as bad as the people committing constant incompetence and criminality at the highest levels of government, no matter how eloquent the presentation of the claim of "bothsides".
- ticviking 7y agoThe issue as I see it is that the people claiming to clean house seem to be incapable of following their own rules for cleaning house. Given my biases this leaves me suspecting that this is one corrupt faction trying to oust the other corrupt faction.
- shadowgovt 7y agoEven if it is, the solution isn't to keep the currently-entrenched corrupt faction in power, right?
- ticviking 7y agoI'm not going to support any efforts that involve blatantly ignoring the rules. I fully support the House either initiating impeachment under their existing rules OR changing the rules to align with the procedure they have chosen to use. A significant amount of how we got into this situation is because the institutions of our republic have become far too tolerant of rule-bending in favor of those who hold positions.
- shadowgovt 7y agoPerhaps. But it's worth noting there's a reason the Constitution is flexible on issues such as justification for impeachment. While law is not a formal system, a variant of Gödel's incompleteness theorem likely still applies (i.e. "There's a way to ruin the country without breaking any laws").
- ticviking 7y agoGood point. That is a lot of why I'd be okay if the thing had a vote before the full house. What I'm seeing though is a pattern of flexibility that benefits the institution over individuals. This is horrifying at the local police department level, where we time and again bad actors protected to protect the department, or police union. Same thing with prosecutors offices, etc. Seeing that pattern targeting the executive of our country is worrying. I'm also really sympathetic to the argument that the white house has advanced about due process. This is particularly important precisely because Trump is so obviously corrupt and self-serving. If we can't do it right when it's obvious how can we do it right against someone sneaker?
- crooked-v 7y ago
- timerol 7y agoAgreed. It really bothers me that the article has this to say about the POTUS: > He’s guilty, but the issue is how guilty, in comparison to his accusers.
- ticviking 7y agoMore than that, "I was investigating wrongdoing by a former vice-president. My personal involvement was diplomatically necessary." is to me a fairly convincing defense for the July call if someone chooses to base impeachment on that event. The fact that the White House doesn't seem to have advanced that argument is confusing to me. More confusing is that a situation with such an obvious defense is what has triggered this instead of the mountain of other issues.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> More confusing is that a situation with such an obvious defense is what has triggered this instead of the mountain of other issues. Abuse of state apparatus for partisan political purposes has been a major tripwire in modern US politics. It was a central reason in why Watergate became an an issue of impeachment (though resignation stopped the impeachment from preceding), and also why a number of other post-Nixon reforms, including FISA (the criminal limits on domestic surveillance, not the weakening of them that some people now associate the name with in the post-9/11 FISA Amendments Act), were adopted. The fact that there is an obvious defense which, if true, would justify the conduct does not mean that the defense seems likely to be true and the conduct thereby justified.
- dragonwriter 7y agoThis isn't classic bothsides-ism, which presents a false equivalency between the sides; this is explicitly claiming the incompetence and criminality are the lesser problem, and claiming that the alternative is a coup (as opposed to a combination of public accountability by the only means available and the enforcement of the fundamental law by the procedure laid out in that law) and that the refusal to adhere to the law by the executive is not (it is; the specific type of coup is called a “self-coup” or “autocoup”, where a leader comes into powerful by lawful means and then take additional power by transcending—often, but not always, as a prelude to abolishing by fiat—the legal constraints on their office.) It only passingly acknowledges problems on the side of the self-coup it defends in order to minimize them. It is, pure and simple, the up-is-down gaslighting that has characterized the Trump camp and it's defenders from day one, not the mere bothsides-ism.
- thawaway1837 7y agoA “coup” that requires a majority of 1 publicly elected House, and a 2/3rds majority of the other publicly elected House to work. Ok.
- ticviking 7y agoSo why hasn't the house actually started impeachment procedings? The procedure they're using is irregular, and doesn't match the rules they passed for themselves. Least they could do when accusing the President of a host of irregularities is follow their own procedures regularly.
- shadowgovt 7y agoIn what way is the procedure irregular?
- ticviking 7y agoI don't have the house rules handy but as I recall impeachment hearings are dependent on a vote to begin the process. Unless I missed a news story there hasn't been a vote of the house to begin impeachment.
- shadowgovt 7y agoI'd confirm such a rule actually exists before criticizing the House for not following it. Most of the "irregularity" stories I've read contrast with the Clinton procedure, but Clinton was a one-off (as was Nixon's never-quite-impeached, as was Johnson).
- ticviking 7y agoReplying here due to nesting limits. I am quite sure about the rule, but I am not in a position to cite it at a moments notice on a random online discussion board.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
- thenayr 7y agoHN is so damn disappointing these days. What is this garbage doing on the front page?
- shadowgovt 7y agoTaibbi strongly insinuates in the article (and then confirms this was his intent in the comments) that the intelligence community is acting out against Trump because they do not like him, not because he is actually corrupt or because they have a duty beyond following the orders of a President. That's a pretty strong accusation, and one he doesn't really present sufficient evidence to support here. He claims a "government-in-exile" situation without explaining who that benefits (who's in charge of the government-in-exile? Certainly not Clinton. Apparently not the Democratic party). In essence, he appears to be buying into an illuminati-grade conspiracy that "they" don't want a Trump Presidency without a lot of support for why or how the alternative benefits them, which is irresponsible and sad coming from Taibbi. Especially since the simpler explanation - the guy with a history of corruption has done something corrupt - is at least as plausible and would necessitate the intelligence community to respond in some way (while still doing their damnedest to maintain their oaths of office in light of the Commander-in-Chief being someone they know is a crook).
- buboard 7y ago> he doesn't really present sufficient evidence to support here He does mention the Russiagate as a phony accusation
- shadowgovt 7y agoRussiagate was a credible accusation that proved to be untrue. Which is a reputational vulnerability Trump will always carry; someone who does international business with countries America has complex socioeconomic and historical ties to will make waves that should come under scrutiny. He could have minimized such scrutiny by divesting himself of his vast real estate empire and he chose not to. The fact it proved untrue doesn't imply bad faith on the part of the intelligence community, however; it's their job to run leads to ground and determine their veracity.
- aisengard 7y agoIt actually resulted in not enough evidence, due to massive amounts of obstruction. What we continue to see today is a pretty good indicator that the basic tenets are likely accurate, and that there is much more to be uncovered.
- sophacles 7y agoWait... Unless I'm seriously misreading, this is just a fancy wording of "Trump didn't do anything, it's the deep state!" Is there something here that isn't just pushing that party line?
- smcl 7y agoYou are seriously mis-reading, I'm afraid. This is no defense of Trump - Taibbi repeats that Trump is corrupt, sexual predator indeed states... "Instead, it was a story about an infamously corrupt individual, Donald Trump, a pussy-grabbing scammer who bragged about using bankruptcy to escape debt and publicly praised Vladimir Putin. Audiences believed the allegations against this person and saw the intelligence/counterintelligence community as acting patriotically, doing their best to keep us informed about a still-breaking investigation of a rogue president." and "Trump stands accused of using the office of the presidency to advance political aims, in particular pressuring Ukraine to investigate potential campaign rival Joe Biden. He’s guilty, but the issue is how guilty, in comparison to his accusers." However I disagree with the idea that Trump should be left alone and that any investigations into his many flaws resembles a coup. The message is clear though - the intelligence services are not your friends, and they're not on your side even if you share a common enemy for the time being. That part is not indulging in conspiracy theory, it is common sense.
- jsnider3 7y agoOh come on! This is the time cube of political analysis!
- Glyptodon 7y agoThis actually provides a reasonable explanation for why the impeachment inquiries and investigations mostly have ignored some of the more obviously straightforward items.
- joveian 7y agoThe argument is bascially this: the FBI and CIA decided they didn't like Trump and started working against him as soon as he was elected. The FBI went first in trying to remove him but failed, now it's the CIA's turn. I.e. that there is an institutional level effort to remove the elected president not in response to the issues being raised but independent of them. Some of the argument is better explained in his latest Rolling Stone article "The ‘Whistleblower’ Probably Isn’t": https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/whistleblower-ukraine-trump-impeach-cia-spying-895529/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/w...
- classicsnoot 7y agoIt would probably be a good idea to institute a policy of the flagging of articles to be explained in the comments (who flagged it, why).