
Trial Balloon for a Coup? - chinathrow
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.kucsawcoj
======
dragonwriter
Deliberate action contrary to valid and binding law by the executive is,
itself, a coup (specifically, an instance of the form known as a self-coup or
autocoup); so it's not a trial balloon.

OTOH, while actions which arguably (or even fairly clearly) cross that line
have occurred in many recent US presidencies, the author here is right to
raise the issue that the acts the article highlights suggest that the present
violations are likely to be the leading edge of a self-coup of unprecedented
magnitude in the US.

------
MollyR
This reads like a conspiracy theory I'd find on Info Wars. I really dislike
the term trump derangement syndrome, but every day its becoming a better
descriptor.

We need to be better than this.

Trump's very election is a coup against the establishment, and so was Bernie
Sanders impressive campaign in the primary. Trump's win, and Bernie's Rise
make it clear, that Americans are done with business as usual politics.

We all need to be dealing with this new reality instead of running to
conspiracy theories.

~~~
tptacek
These are false equivalences. Alex Jones at InfoWars believes that Clinton and
Obama are literally agents of satan, of literal supernatural evil. He's so
over-the-top that his videos have become meme fodder. Obama joked about them
on the stump (Jones claims that Obama left an odor of sulfur because of his
demonic affiliations), and _everyone in the audience knew what he meant_.

Meanwhile, we're just a few days into this administration and it has already
enacted a Muslim ban (complete with an escape hatch for Christians from Muslim
countries) that operates in open defiance of federal courts --- Trump has
precipitated a Constitutional crisis in how the US Marshal Service, which
serves the courts but formally reports to the Executive Branch, will carry out
its orders.

A convenient way to dismiss an argument is to attempt to tie it clownish
morons like Alex Jones. But to accomplish that, you'll have to support your
argument with evidence. What supernatural powers does this post suggest compel
Trump to violate the federal courts?

~~~
MollyR
Its absolutely not a false equivalence. Infowars publishes tons of fear
mongering articles with various shades of legitimacy, just like this article.
EDIT: It's how they got so influential, they mix a lot of half truths and
speculation into their articles.

A muslim ban that doesn't ban saudi arabia, india,pakistan indonesia,and
somalia doesn't seem much of a muslim ban.

I'm going to quote elon musk here "Reading the source material is better than
reading other people's opinions about the source material" on the muslim ban.
Its pretty clear the media is acting as an opposition party to Trump rather
then objective researchers.

I highly suggest you read the actual executive orders, before you start fear
mongering, because that doesn't actually help anybody.

~~~
grzm
Source material _is_ important. It's also important to look at what people
have said around the creation of that source material. Giuliani, in an
interview on Fox News, yesterday:

[http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-t...](http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-
trump-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally)

"I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said
‘Muslim ban,'" Giuliani said on Fox News.

"He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way
to do it legally.’"

I find it very difficult to dismiss out of hand that it isn't intended as a
Muslim ban in spirit when Giuliani explicitly says that this exactly what he
was asked to do.

The submitted post also includes two articles which include a lot of
additional source material.

~~~
MollyR
In the article, it says explicitly.

""" "The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual
basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible."

Giuliani reiterated that the ban is "not based on religion." """

A muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical to me.

As for the conspiracy theory medium article, its easy to do in a world of big
data. It's called cherry picking, and its exactly what Info Wars does to
create their fear mongering articles. Vague speculation and half truths on the
main premises of the paper, and then even the conclusions.

Here's an example from the medium article: "The aims of crushing various
groups — Muslims, Latinos, the black and trans communities, academics, the
press — are very much primary aims of the regime"

This is clear hysteria. Here's what Trump actually said on black communities
while campaigning, "We're going to rebuild our inner cities because our
African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever
been in before. Ever, ever, ever."

And so far President Trump as been doing pretty closely what he said.

~~~
grzm
_A muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical to me._

I agree. Will you admit that sometimes people figure out ways to accomplish
their goals under the cover of something else? That they know something won't
be politically or legally feasible to do head on, but that they can accomplish
another way if they don't express their actual intent explicitly? I think it's
hard not to argue this happens. This type of accusation is thrown around all
of the time from all sides.

In this particular instance, we've got explicit evidence of exactly that _from
one of the people who was involved in doing it_. It's really hard to ignore
this, or even deny the possibility without being disingenuous.

And this is ignoring the submitted article all-together.

~~~
MollyR
No I don't. I think the executive limits worked pretty well here. President
Trump may have wanted a muslim ban, but they couldn't do it.

So they tried to take Obama what did in 2011, a few steps further and are
rightfully taking flak for it, just like I think Obama should have gotten in
2011.

Again though a muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical.

Edit: Is there subtext I'm missing. Are you implying this is a slippery slope
to a full muslim ban ?

~~~
grzm
_I think the executive limits worked pretty well here. President Trump may
have wanted a muslim ban, but they couldn 't do it._

(Aside: _may have wanted_? Can't even trust what Giuliani said Trump told
him?)

Great. So we're supposed to be happy with a President who stretches the law as
far as he can to do what he wants. This smacks of the "well, it was legal, so
what's the problem?" argument we hear all too often. Just because you can
figure out a way to do something legally _doesn 't mean it's the right or
moral thing to do_.

Response to the edit: Yes, I think there's something you're missing, and it's
not subtext at all. Trump at minimum _wanted_ a Muslim ban. There's no reason
to think he won't continue to push for one, or one that accomplishes the same
goals.

Trump is very good at not clearly expressing what he means. I'm not satisfied
yet whether this is intended or not. If the latter, it's sowing a lot of
needless confusion domestically and abroad. If on purpose, it makes it very
difficult to trust him and know what his intent is, domestically and abroad.

Evidence on HN: Trump supporters are divided as to whether this is a Muslim
ban or not. You'll find comments expressing either opinion.

~~~
MollyR
There was double quotes in your article about Giuliani talking about the
"muslim ban", so yes I don't know what that may mean or may not mean and I
didn't feel like speculating.

Also I said I don't think it was the right thing to do.

But again I have to say a muslim ban that isn't based on religion really
doesn't make sense. As for region based bans, those are not really new they've
been done since Jimmy Carter.

~~~
grzm
I think the double quotes you're referring to are a quote for Giuliani quoting
what Trump said to him. Compare with the "Put a commission together" quote-in-
quote in the next line.

------
Daishiman
This should be upvoted way higher.

The US Executive's power is being taken over y a small cabal of extremists and
kleptocrats. There is extensive history on this type of takeover.

~~~
maxerickson
US executive power is vested in a single individual to begin with.

The issue is whether they are following the law or not.

(Advice and consent of the Senate for cabinet positions isn't meaningless, but
they instruct the executive by statute not by directives given to cabinet
members)

~~~
Daishiman
The Executive has already made the DHS disobey a court order. If that's not a
Constitutional Crisis I don't know what it.

This is _literally_ a textbook example of how autocrats take over. It has
happened before and all the rules for that game are being played out right
now.

~~~
LyndsySimon
This is not new.

It's interesting to note that Trump has placed a portrait of Andrew Jackson in
the Oval Office, as there are many parallels between Trump's rise to power and
Jackson's.

> In a popular quotation that is believed to be apocryphal, President Andrew
> Jackson reportedly responded: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let
> him enforce it!" This derives from Jackson's comments on the case in a
> letter to John Coffee, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still
> born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its
> mandate".

source:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia#Effects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia#Effects)

A President wielding Presidential authority is not a coup, it's acting within
the authority given to the office via the Constitution and Congress. If you
believe the President has too much power then I would urge you to be doing all
you can to limit the power of the office, not just change who is in it.

~~~
maxerickson
_it 's acting within the authority given to the office via the Constitution
and Congress_

There's a bunch of stays issued by federal courts that are based on
questioning whether the administration is doing that.

~~~
LyndsySimon
From my perspective - _good_.

I don't mind sharing that I voted for Trump. I'm not a cheerleader for him,
though, my reasons for doing so are limited in scope and he has yet to act to
support my interests. That said, all signs seem to indicate that he will do
so.

The absolute best thing that could come from a Trump presidency is if Congress
and the courts were able to significantly restrain the authority of the
Executive Branch in general and the President in particular. It has grown far
beyond its Constitutional bounds.

~~~
maxerickson
So, uh, what if he is acting outside the scope of the powers given to him by
the Constitution and Congress and the courts and Congress don't do enough to
stop him?

(You know, the premise of the link)

~~~
LyndsySimon
If that's the case, we're too far gone to save the Republic.

Do you think we'd have a better chance to save it in four years? or forty?

We've clearly been trending toward increased executive power since our
founding. If it's too late now it'll be too late later.

~~~
macintux
"I'll vote in a morally bankrupt populist kleptocrat and then argue that if
the system can't restrain him it's not my fault."

~~~
LyndsySimon
No.

There are a lot of "if"s in this discussion. Trump has only thus far fulfilled
some of his campaign promises. We're discussing potential outcomes if he were
to exceed his authority and refuse to yield to the rule of law. I don't
believe that will happen.

------
sctb
Since this has been submitted several times and flagkilled on each occasion,
we've turned the flags off on this one to host the discussion.

------
kafkaesq
It's not a "trial balloon" for a coup. It _is_ form of a coup, albeit of a
softer, slower-moving sort.

For as long as people agree to go along with it, that is.

------
synicalx
He's running it like a business, this looks like just about every merger I've
ever been stuck in the middle of. Not entirely surprising given his
background, surely?

------
ryanswapp
I found this earlier today which I think gives a much fairer characterization
of the recent executive orders.
[http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/are-we-going-
to...](http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/are-we-going-to-freak-out-
every-time-trump-does-what-he-promised/)

The type of fearmongering and conspiracy theory generation in this article
reminds me of conservatives during Obama's presidency.

------
gingerbread-man
Not real journalism! This shouldn't be on the front page-- it's full of
unsubstantiated accusations and questionable interpretations of fact. The
Trump administration's actions over the past few days are horrifying enough--
editorial catastrophization serves no purpose here.

~~~
aasarava
It doesn't claim to be "journalism." This was published on Medium, which is
pretty clearly for essays and opinions. I'll grant you that some of the
speculation is pretty far out there (like the Rosneft sale being tied to
Trump). But the author is trying to put together a cohesive theory that might
explain the chaotic moves being taken by the new US executive branch. If you
want to disagree with the theory, point out where it's faulty. But claiming
it's "not real journalism" is a non sequitur -- it was never intended to be a
reporting of the facts.

------
DougN7
I read the article and don't know enough facts to know how accurate and
truthful it might be. However, what if you saw a Hitler-like person taking
power? Surely it would be much harder today given the level of communication
we have today?

~~~
maxerickson
Hitler took power (in part) by using radio and television to broadcast his
message.

It wasn't particularly sneaky.

~~~
zardo
The formula is pretty simple. "All good patriots are with me. Show yourself to
be a good patriot by reporting enemy talk. When I'm in power, I will punish my
enemies."

~~~
flukus
This has been employed by both sides lately. How many threads were there on
not doing business with Peter Thiel?

------
avryhof
This was a fun read. It's almost a good foundation for a best seller.

I liked Gorbachev's theory, too: [http://time.com/4645442/gorbachev-putin-
trump/](http://time.com/4645442/gorbachev-putin-trump/)

------
superplussed
This all reads true to me, what is arguable here?

~~~
LyndsySimon
The central premise?

If Trump wanted to take over the US government, this is not at all the way
he'd go about it.

~~~
ap3
And you know this because....?

~~~
LyndsySimon
An executive order on immigration, while arbitrary, follows established
precedent.

The inclusion of existing visa and permanent residency holders was designed to
stoke the fires of the media and of the left. Trump has a whole stack of
things he wants to accomplish, and he's tiring out his primary opposition
while simultaneously virtue-signaling to his base.

If he were wanting to instigate a coup he'd be quietly placing people beholden
to him into positions of power, driving wedges between the internal divisions
of his opposition, and solidifying the ground he's already taken.

Trump is nimble. He understands what's going to incite those who speak out
against him, and he uses that knowledge to set them up for failure. He did
this throughout the campaign and he's doing it now. You're supposed to be
upset about the immigration EO. You're supposed to be upset about his SCOTUS
nominee that he's promised tomorrow. You're supposed to be upset about the
next thing he does.

Trump is ridiculing his opposition, and so many people live in their own
personal echo chambers that they aren't even noticing.

~~~
altern8tif
> If he were wanting to instigate a coup he'd be quietly placing people
> beholden to him into positions of power

The fact that Bannon has been installed on the National Security Council, and
that attendance of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and DNI is allowed only upon
request of the Council is the bigger story here.

[EDIT] And it is not so much that he is the instigator of the coup. Trump may
only be the puppet here.

Genuine question: How does one recognize a coup before it's too late to stop
it?

------
zellyn
Although this reads a little hyperbolically, Yonatan is generally a pretty
good source of information.

------
rm_-rf_slash
During the Nuremberg Trials, former Nazi officers claimed that they were
merely "following orders."

CBP officials, meanwhile, are ignoring the law and the independent judiciary
itself.

How is this not treason?

~~~
Manishearth
Not 100% sure of this, but I suspect they don't take orders from the
judiciary, rather their superiors, which are part of the executive branch. So
it's possible that their superiors haven't changed the orders or are doubling-
down.

Now, that is _illegal_ of course, and morally reprehensible, but they could
still be construed to be "following orders".

~~~
LyndsySimon
Let me scare you a bit further, then - it is entirely within Trump's power to
order Executive Branch employees to enforce whatever orders he enacts, _then
preemptively pardon them from any potentially criminal acts that arise from
doing so_.

~~~
itsdrewmiller
I don't think this is correct - the pardon authority only applies to acts that
have already been committed, as far as I can tell. He could maybe keep
pardoning everyone every day for crimes they committed on the previous day.
Would make an interesting paragraph in a dystopian novel.

~~~
LyndsySimon
Article 2, Section 2: [...] "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and
Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of
Impeachment."

It looks to me like he has the ability. As you said, even if he doesn't, he
can still make it happen as long as he's in office.

