[billorites]

Reading a Michael Anton essay is nothing to be undertaken lightly.

[RoseofTexas]

Read the last two paragraphs..just WOW!! And on mark!

[reasonisfaith]

“if the Republicans’collude’ with this sham and force the removal of a president”

I don’t think his removal would be physically possible.

[cdcdawg]

They’ve done Russia and Ukraine. My memory is that the USSR had somewhere around 20 Republics. Could Latvia be next? Maybe one of the stans? It will be something, that’s all that is certain.

[Jeff Chandler]

Speculation: Could the State Department’s fevered opposition to Russia have anything to do with Russia’s disapproval of sodomy?

[Soul of the South]

“It is no accident or coincidence that the only three presidents who have fundamentally challenged the administrative state—and questioned its song sheet, the “U.S. government policy community consensus”—have been dogged by “scandal” and threatened with impeachment: Richard Nixon by Watergate, Ronald Reagan by Iran Contra, and now Trump.”

Add John F. Kennedy - assassination.

Possibly Harry Truman - McArthur’s insubordination.

Eisenhower was clearly aware of the problem but did nothing except warn of the military industrial complex when he left office.

Actually the founders understood the threat very well and the Constitution included limitations to prevent an large central administrative state from being created. Those limitations unfortunately, have been removed through Constitutional amendments, court decrees, and abdication of responsibility by Congress.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Oh, and let’s also be clear about something else: if the Republicans “collude” with this sham and force the removal of a president whose approval rating within his party hovers north of 90%, and whose voters scarcely understand—much less agree with—the “case” against him, they will destroy the party forever.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Especially if they think their collusion with the Kenyanesian Usurpation might surface.

[Fledermaus]

Fire everyone at State, FBI, NSC, and CIA.

Or hire firing squads.

[M. Thatcher]

This is by the same guy who wrote the stellar "The Flight 93 Election".

[Rummyfan]

...Trump would likely take this as small consolation, but it’s a measure of how much he’s feared that his enemies are running this play against him now, rather than simply trying to defeat him next year. Which more than suggests they doubt they can.”

I don't want to get too cocky, but I think Pelosi and Schumer must have polling that shows none of their potential candidates have a snowball's chance in hell against President Trump.

[bitt]

p

[Bob Ireland]

Was Thucydides a Democrat or a Republican?

[David]

This is really an excellent analysis. There are a couple of corrective points.

For one thing, contrary to his assertion that the deep state strategic effort "almost worked against Reagan" is wrong--it did work.

The convincing act was that they were able to shoot him and even though they didn't kill him, they sufficiently intimidated him so that the deep state retained control with lead managers in every area like Shultz, Weinberger etc. running operations other than the direct confrontation with Russia where Reagan was able to pursue his agenda.

On tax, spending, domestic policy, and foreign policy other than Russia, they continued to drive. Like Trump, Reagan not only failed to restructure the tax and federal spending systems in favor of Normal Americans, the deep state structured "reforms" more in its interest than in the interest of American citizens.

The second point is the implicit proposition that in the three years he has been in office, Trump has been unable to attack or correct the abusive misconduct of the Deep State representatives in any material way.

Why not?

The real insider answer is the Obama pardons on his exit from the oval office.

It is not clear that any of Trumps representatives have even seen or heard an exact accurate description of the pardons themselves.

If Obama was born outside the United States, no matter which one of the choices for his parentage is accurate, there is no legal theory on which he was eligible to hold the office of President. There is no real evidence available on any record of the location of his place of birth other than his statements in the many published official biographies and on the record of early period campaigns (which constitute legal evidence as statements against interest)--all of those actual evidences are of a birth outside the country.

Pardons by Obama should be aggressively attacked as ineffective because he was not in fact the President who could Constitutionally grant them.