'Coup' Concerns Suddenly Don't Seem So Far-fetched
By: Victor Davis Hanson
The deep state is real. It is now moving out of the shadows from resistance to outright coup. Democrats are trying to with the deep state overthrow the republic and the constitution
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
For most of the last three years, Donald Trump's critics have scoffed at supposed "conspiracy theories" that claimed a "deep state" of bureaucrats were aborting the Trump presidency. We have been told the word "coup" is hyperbole that reveals the paranoid minds of Trump supporters.
Yet oddly, many people brag that they are proud members of a deep state and occasionally boast about the idea of a coup.
Recently, former acting CIA chief John McLaughlin proclaimed in a public forum, "Thank God for the deep state." Former CIA director John Brennan agreed and praised the "deep state people" for their opposition to Trump.
Far from denying the danger of an unelected careerist bureaucracy that seeks to overturn presidential policies, New York Times columnists have praised its efforts to nullify the Trump agenda.
On the first day of the impeachment inquiry, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff called his initial two witnesses, career State Department diplomats William Taylor Jr. and George Kent. Far from providing damning evidence of criminal presidential behavior, Taylor and Kent mostly confined themselves to three topics: their own sterling resumes, their lack of any firsthand knowledge of incriminating Trump action, and their poorly hidden disgust with the manner and substance of Trump's foreign policy.
Oddly, both had little clue that their demeanor and thinly disguised self-importance were a perfect example of why Trump got elected -- to come up with new ideas antithetical to the conventional wisdom of unelected career bureaucrats.
Taylor and Kent announced that they are simply high-minded civil servants who serve the presidential administrations of both parties without bias.
But by nature, the huge federal bureaucracy counts on bigger government and more taxes to feed it. So naturally, the bureaucracy is usually more sympathetic to big-government progressives than to small-government conservatives.
Taylor and Kent cited their anguish with Trump's foreign policy toward Ukraine -- namely that it did not go through official channels and was too unsympathetic to Ukraine and too friendly to Russia. If so, one might have thought the anguished bureaucrats would have similarly gone public during the Obama administration.
After all, Vice President Joe Biden took over the Obama administration's Ukrainian policy at a time when his son Hunter was knee-deep in Ukrainian affairs. As a consultant for a Ukrainian natural gas company, Hunter Biden made a reported $80,000 a month without expertise in either the energy business in particular or Ukraine in general.
Also, Trump's policies have been more anti-Russian and pro-Ukrainian than those of the Obama administration. Trump armed the Ukrainians; Obama did not. Trump imposed new sanctions against Russia, used force against Russian mercenaries in Syria, beefed up NATO defenses, pulled the U.S. out an asymmetrical missile treaty with Russia, and pumped more oil and gas to lower world prices -- much to the chagrin of oil-exporting Russia.
In contrast, Obama was the architect of "reset" with Russia that reached its nadir in a hot mic exchange in which Obama offered a quid pro quo, vowing more flexibility on issues such as U.S.-sponsored missile defense in Eastern Europe in exchange for Russia giving Obama "space" to concentrate on his re-election.
Trump's critics have also radically changed their spin on "coups." To them, "coup" is no longer a dirty word trafficked in by right-wing conspiracists. Instead, it has been normalized as a possibly legitimate means of aborting the Trump presidency.
Mark Zaid, the attorney representing the Ukraine whistleblower, boasted in two recently discovered tweets of ongoing efforts to stage a coup to remove Trump.
"#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow," Zaid tweeted in January 2017. Later the same month, he tweeted: "#coup has started. As one falls, two more will take their place."
Retired Admiral William H. McRaven recently wrote an op-ed for The New York Times all but calling for Trump's ouster -- "the sooner the better."
No sooner had Trump been elected than Rosa Brooks, a former Defense Department official during the Obama administration, wrote an essay for Foreign Policy magazine discussing theoretical ways to remove Trump before the 2020 election, among them a scenario involving a military coup.
In September 2018, The New York Times published an op-ed from an anonymous White House official who boasted of supposedly widescale efforts inside the Trump administration to nullify its operations and subvert presidential directives.
Such efforts to oppose Trump are often self-described as "The Resistance," a reference to the underground French fighters resisting the Nazis in World War II.
Trump's opponents often have praised the deep state precisely because unelected career officials are seen as the most effective way to sabotage and stymie his agenda.
A "coup" is no longer proof of right-wing paranoia, but increasingly a part of the general progressive discourse of resistance to Trump.
In these upside-down times, patriotism is being redefined as removing a president before a constitutionally mandated election.
Recommended from Townhall
Tags
Who is online
232 visitors
Coup coup! Coup coup!
There is as much evidence that I am the creator of the universe and you're all just figments of my imagination as there is of a "deep state".
What I've seen so far are deeply concerned State department employees and career diplomats truthfully exposing a criminal enterprise hatched by the President and his cronies to leverage the Ukrainians into giving them something Trump believed he could use against who he believed would likely be his opponent in the 2020 election. Desperate to remain in power, dishonest Donald sent out his minions to circumvent the standard channels to deliver a message demanding the new President of Ukraine go on public media and announce investigations specifically into the conspiracy theory started by the FSB and floated by RT and picked up by Fox and other right wing media alleging 2016 Ukrainian campaign interference and Burisma. Now, many other companies in Ukraine likely should also be investigated for corruption, but untruthful Trump only wanted a public announcement naming Burisma specifically because he knows Hunter Biden once worked for the company and was paid well, which is now apparently enough circumstantial evidence for Republicans to convict on when its their opponents. And by smear extension, Trump was planning on using this manufactured conspiracy theory dirt that he tried to force Zelensky into legitimizing but got caught before Zelensky went on CNN and capitulated.
The target of the effort has not been Joe Biden. The effort to coax Ukraine to announce investigations of ties between Obama administration Democrats and Ukrainian oligarchs was directly aimed at the news media. The news media failing to engage in the same sort of hair-on-fire 'speculative' reporting that has been directed towards Trump and his family would be a tacit demonstration of partisan bias. Why should the public believe a press that is so obviously biased toward Democrats? That is the political gain Trump was seeking; don't pay attention to the press because the press is biased.
How can sending an ambassador who was keeping everyone in the loop circumvent standard channels? Gordon Sondland is a standard channel for diplomacy. Everyone needs to understand that the role of the State Dept. is to interact with (and meddle in) the political governments of other countries. Replacing one ambassador with another ambassador is not unusual. Especially when the President is attempting to make a major shift in foreign policy.
It is very likely that other companies also need to be investigated. However, that's difficult to accomplish when Burisma was exempted. And there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that some political pressure was applied to the Ukrainian government to let Burisma off the hook.
President Zelensky is seeking a commitment that the United States will militarily defend Ukraine. That's a very large ask. Zelensky wants the big dog covering his back when he negotiates with Russia. Ukraine has no hope of reclaiming Crimea without support of the United States. And it is very unlikely that Russia gives up Crimea even with the United States supporting the Ukrainian government.
What's Ukraine going to do, sanction Russia?
se he knows Hunter Biden once worked for the company and was paid well,
Why do you imagine Hunter Biden was given a $50,000 a month job that he was manifestly unqualified for?
"Coup concerns"? Honestly?
The 'so called coup' began with the specter of Birtherism which morphed into a president and compliant political party's acceptance and adoration of Vladimir Putin, his style of governance and his control.
Pelosi is right when she succinctly stated to Trump's face, "With you all roads lead to Putin." That is the coup and that is the 'deep state'.
It is kind of amazing to see Democrats claim there is no organized effort to get rid of Trump even as you show them evidence of them doing it since before he was even sworn in.
Yeah, Birtherism comes to mind. And "Stormy who" is so yesterday, right?