A Successful Coup Against Trump Will Murder American Democracy

By Paul Craig Roberts

November 08, 2019 “Information Clearing House” –  President Trump calls it a witch hunt, but it really is a coup against American democracy. The Democrats who want Trump impeached don’t realize this. They just want Trump impeached because they don’t like him. The impeach Trump people don’t understand that if the coup against the elected president succeeds, every future president will know that if he attempts to “drain the swamp” or bring any changes not acceptable to the ruling elite, he, too, will be destroyed. Voters who want real change will also get the message and give up trying to elect a president or members of the House and Senate who will be responsive to voters. It will mean the end of democracy and accountable government. Unhindered rule by the Deep State and associated elites will take democracy’s place.

It is unfortunate that progressives do not understand this. Progressives want real change and Trump impeached, but these desires are at variance with one another.

Few, if any, of the impeach Trump crowd are paying any attention to the fabricated case against Trump that has taken the place of the Russiagate fabrication that failed. They could not care less what the case is or whether it is a fabrication. Dislike of Trump suffices.

Nevertheless, let’s look at the fabricated case.

First of all, the alleged whistleblower is not a legitimate whistleblower. He is Eric Ciaramella, a CIA officer with a second-hand complaint who met with House Intelligence (sic) chairman Adam Schiff a month ahead to orchestrate the event. Ciaramella served on Obama’s staff when VP Joe Biden was point man for Ukraine. Ciaramella also worked with CIA Director John Brennan, the architect of “Russiagate,” and with a Democratic National Committee operative who encouraged Ukraine officials to come up with dirt on President Trump.

All of this and more has caused the “whistleblower” to withdraw from testifying.

Desperate for a substitute, Democrats have come up with tainted career bureaucrats who favor military aid to Ukraine and a hard line toward Russia. Bill Taylor a US diplomat in Ukraine claims that Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, said that US military aid to Ukraine was conditional on Ukraine reopening the government’s investigation into the Ukrainian company, Burisma, an investigation that VP Joe Biden had closed down. Burisma is the company that paid as much as $1.75 million to Biden and his son.

Taylor claims that another bureaucrat, Tim Morrison, told him that Sondland communicated the “quid pro quo” to an aide to Zelensky.

Sondland rejects the claims by Taylor and Morrison.

A Ukrainian born rabid anti-Russian US Army officer serving on the National Security Council, Alexander Vindman, also offers two cents of unverified quid pro quo claims. Vindman’s motive seems to be that President Trump is inclined to follow a different policy toward Ukraine than Vindman prefers.

This is the extent of the case against Trump. Amazingly weak considering that Ukrainian president Zelensky has stated publicly that there was no quid pro quo and that the released transcript of the Trump-Zelensky conversation shows no quid pro quo.

Now for the issue of the alleged quid pro quo. It seems that everyone on both sides of the argument takes for granted without a second of thought that if there was a quid pro quo, there was an offense, possibly one sufficiently offensive to warrant impeachment. This is utter ignorant nonsense.

Quid pro quos are endemic in US foreign policy and always have been. The US government offered Ecuador president Lenin Moreno a $4.2 billion IMF loan in exchange for revoking Julian Assange’s asylum. Moreno took the deal.

Washington offered the Venezuelan military money to overthrow President Maduro. The military refused the offer.

Dozens of examples come readily to mind. Research would produce enough to fill a book.

What do you think the sanctions are that the US president places on countries? They are punishments that Washington imposes for not accepting Washington’s deal.

As for a quid pro quo deal between the US executive branch and president of Ukraine, we have VP Joe Biden’s boast that he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired who was investigating corruption in the firm that had purchased US protection by putting Biden’s son, Hunter, on Burisma’s board. Joe Biden brags in front of the Council on Foreign Relations that he gave the Ukrainian president 6 hours to fire the prosecutor or forfeit $1 billion in US aid.

– See Also –

Ukraine Prosecutor That Biden Got Fired Says He Was Told To Back Off Investigation, Report Says

Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden’s Ukraine story

As Biden was US Vice President at the time and is currently the leading Democratic candidate for the US presidential nomination, he is clearly guilty of what Trump is accused. Why is only Trump subject to investigation? If an offense that is merely suspected or alleged suffices for impeaching a president, why isn’t a known and admitted and bragged about offense reason to disqualify Biden from being president?

One would think that a question this obvious would be the topic of debate. But not a word from the presstitutes, Democrats, or Republicans.

Finally, there is the question of the whistleblower law. If this interpretation sent to me by a reliable source is correct, there is no basis in law for the alleged whistleblower complaint.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the WestHow America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World OrderDonate and support Dr, Roberts Work.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Nancy Pelosi for president? Not so fast, says New York Times!

In a stunning move for the famously liberal New York Times, the newspaper printed an editorial calling for a dramatic change in the laws governing presidential succession.

In other words, the newspaper’s idea would mean that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. would NOT be allowed to become president even if both President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence are impeached.

“The speaker of the House, like any member of Congress, should be nowhere near the line of succession to the presidency,” Jesse Wegman, a member of the Times editorial board, wrote a lengthy and thorough call for action.

Not only does it undermine the will of the people in a presidential election, it also means Pelosi would preside over an impeachment that could end with her in the White House.

Wegman called that a “whopping conflict of interest.”

Wegman’s essay echoed an editorial last month published by Bloomberg, which also urged a change to the laws of presidential succession.

“It’s always been a mistake to insert members of Congress into the presidential line of succession,” wrote Jonathan Bernstein, who taught political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University. “It’s contrary to the entire structure of the constitutional system, which separates legislative from executive institutions and forces them to share powers.”

Bernstein not only urged a change in succession laws, but called on Congress to make that change right now, before impeachment proceedings get under way, to remove that conflict of interest from the start.

The idea of Pelosi dispatching of both Trump and Pence and seizing the presidency for herself has been the stuff of leftist dreams since the day she ascended to the speaker’s chair after last year’s midterm elections.

It might seem far-fetched.

And maybe it is.

But there are scenarios in which it could happen.

One would be going after Pence first — a la Vice President Spiro T. Agnew resigning before Nixon – then impeaching Trump before the vacant VP slot is filled. Another would be to impeach Trump, allow Pence to take over, and then impeach him as well — again before a new VP is confirmed.

Either scenario gives Pelosi another conflict of interest: Both bodies of Congress have to approve any new VP pick, a process that has happened twice in recent years and wasn’t quick either time.

When Agnew resigned, it was nearly two months before Gerald Ford was confirmed. When Ford became president, it took more than four months to confirm Nelson Rockefeller as vice president.

As speaker of the House, Pelosi can stymie that process even further – delaying the vote and giving impeachment more time to proceed so that she remains next in line for the presidency.

Beyond her position being an obvious conflict… and beyond replacing a duly elected president and vice president with someone who has never won a national election… putting the speaker in the White House negates the results of the election on an even higher level.

When American voters choose their president, they’re not just choosing an individual. They’re choosing a platform – and someone to carry it out with an administration made up of the people he picks for the job.

As Wegman notes, President Dwight Eisenhower summed it up best: “I believe that if the electorate says that such-and-such a party should have the White House for four years, it ought to have the White House for four years.”

A President Pelosi, unlike a president from within the Trump administration, would take the White House away from the choice of the electorate.

The obvious answer would be to restore the old succession order.

That would mean after the vice president, members of the Cabinet would be next in line, with the previous order offering a good start: secretary of state, followed by the secretary of defense and then the attorney general.

The only question is whether an ambitious Pelosi – whose only path to the White House would be through impeachment – would allow it to happen.

— Walter W. Murray is a reporter for The Horn News. He is an outspoken conservative and a survival expert, and is the author of “America’s Final Warning.