
We're in a Permanent Coup - yasp
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup
======
crooked-v
People 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
The 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
Even if it is, the solution isn't to keep the currently-entrenched corrupt
faction in power, right?

~~~
ticviking
I'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
Perhaps. 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
Good 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
> That is a lot of why I'd be okay if the thing had a vote before the full
> house

A vote before the full House is literally part of the process for submitting
articles of impeachment to the Senate.

------
thawaway1837
A “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
So 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
In what way is the procedure irregular?

~~~
ticviking
I 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.

~~~
ticviking
Replying 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
"""“In the history of our nation, the House of Representatives has never
attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a
majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by
voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step.” — Pat A. Cipollone,
White House counsel, in a letter on Tuesday to House Democratic leaders """

New York Times reports [[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/politics/fact-
check-im...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/politics/fact-check-
impeachment.html)] that statement is misleading; the Congressional Research
Service
[[https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf)]
has noted "In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory
authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against
officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment
investigation."

It's not improper to pursue the facts that would underpin impeachment before
bringing articles to bear. How would one draft the articles in an information
vacuum?

~~~
ticviking
I'll need to read those in more detail, but at this point I'm convinced by
your summary of the arguments and points made.

------
joveian
The 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/w...](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-
commentary/whistleblower-ukraine-trump-impeach-cia-spying-895529/)

------
throwaway5752
This 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
I've come to expect nothing less than grifters like Taibbi. He thinks he ate
the red pill.

------
Glyptodon
This actually provides a reasonable explanation for why the impeachment
inquiries and investigations mostly have ignored some of the more obviously
straightforward items.

------
jsnider3
Oh come on! This is the time cube of political analysis!

~~~
mekane8
What does "time cube" mean in this context?

~~~
jsnider3
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube)

------
shadowgovt
Taibbi 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
> he doesn't really present sufficient evidence to support here

He does mention the Russiagate as a phony accusation

~~~
shadowgovt
Russiagate 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
It 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.

------
classicsnoot
It 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).

------
zipwitch
Journalist 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)

------
sophacles
Wait... 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
You 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.

