Breaking News: Trump coup d&#x27;etat commencing

Definition of coup d'état

plural
coups d'état
or
coups d'etat
play \-ˈtä(z), -ˌtä(z)\

1.

: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group <a military coup d'état of the dictator>

Hardly. I can see this is going to be a busy four years for you.

Reply 2

joe cooley

1

The fantasy world of the left is rather entertaining, please keep it up.

Reply 3

Cato the Elder

3

I was getting excited by this thread. I thought the army was launching a coup against Trump.

Reply 4

OP

Original post by 999tigger

X

I'm not sure if your opinion really has any worth in this situation. You don't really possess the education or judgment to understand the legal implications of this.

By the way, anyone with even a moderately appreciable facility with the English language would be aware coup d'etat isn't singularly restricted to meaning a violent overthrow.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 5

OP

How predictable. The Trump trolls have come in to defend something they don't really understand and probably lack the education and judgment to understand even if they wanted to. All they know is that Trump did it, so they support it. Bahhhh

Reply 6

InnerTemple

Original post by joe cooley

The fantasy world of the left is rather entertaining, please keep it up.

What's fantasy about this?

Reply 7

OP

Original post by Cato the Elder

I was getting excited by this thread. I thought the army was launching a coup against Trump.

It may come to that, if Trump is impeached and attempts to stay in office using force.

This current episode demonstrates his fascist and despotic tendencies, and it's a breach of the rule of law of a sort we haven't seen in the Anglosphere since the Glorious Revolution and the expulsion of Stuart papistry.

Say what you will about the conservative establishment of the Anglosphere, for all their faults, since the 1680s it was the unquestionable dispensation of the conservative establishment right that the rule of law was to be adhered to. This was partly anti-revolutionary, but it was also an ideological commitment that benefits all of the people (procedural fairness is its own kind of substantive fairness).

I pointed out during the campaign that Trump represented a fundamental break from this conservative dispensation, and that his election would be extremely dangerous to Anglosphere democracy. I'm surprised it only took him a week to prove me right.

Reply 8

joe cooley

1

Original post by InnerTemple

What's fantasy about this?

This?

Its not just this, everything you lot spout is pure nonsense.

Sorry not everything, some of it is hypocritical nonsense.

The more juvenile among you are reduced to childish name calling at the first sign of disagreement.

Entertaining yet sad, at the same time.

Reply 9

999tigger

Original post by AlexanderHam

I'm not sure if your opinion really has any worth in this situation. You don't really possess the education or judgment to understand the legal implications of this.

By the way, anyone with even a moderately appreciable facility with the English language would be aware coup d'etat isn't singularly restricted to meaning a violent overthrow.

Oh the irony of allegedly not being able to understand the legal implications.

Reply 10

nulli tertius

21

Original post by AlexanderHam

A shocking, unprecedented development. Federal judges in the US issued a stay of execution on the deportation of people from US airports under the Trump immigration "ban" order, while the constitutionality of the order is assessed by the courts and pending trial.

The courts specifically directed the Customs and Border Protection service not to continue deportations from the airports. Thus, they have received a lawful order from a federal judge; they do not get to decide whether to carry out.

We are now receiving reports that CBP staff are continuing with the deportations, refusing to carry out the stay and have told the applicants' lawyers that they have been told only to accept their orders from the US Attorney's (the federal prosecutor appointed by administration).

Furthermore, US federal agencies such as Customs and Border Protection are refusing to accept "service of process" (that is, the formal service of court documents after which they are deemed to receive the legal document and to know about it) of these court orders and of documents from the immigration lawyers.

So the immigration lawyers went to the US Marshals, the enforcement arm of the US federal judiciary, to have them enforce the court order and they refused, saying they had been told by the White House to do nothing, and to await instructions from the US Attorney.

The immigration lawyers went to the US Attorney for the Central District of California (again, this it a White House appointee who is the prosecutor of federal crimes in that area) to effect "service of process" of these federal court orders. The US Attorney was about to sign to accept service of process of the court orders, and suddenly they were "called away", and when they came back they said they would not accept service.

This is completely unprecedented, a fundamental breach of the rule of law which we haven't seen in the Anglosphere since the 1680s. If federal officials and marshals now place their personal loyalty to the president above their obligation to the constitution and to carry out lawful orders of the federal judiciary, then we are seeing the embryo of fascism. This is an extremely dangerous situation. I'm disgusted, frankly, that conservatives kept telling us "Oh, don't worry about Trump. He sounds like a Nazi but that's just campaign talk, he'll calm down when he's in office". Appalled doesn't even begin to express my feelings.

@nulli tertius @Bornblue @Fullofsurprises

I see no evidence of any of this in the pro-Democrat mainstream media.

A source please?

Reply 11

joe cooley

1

Original post by nulli tertius

I see no evidence of any of this in the pro-Democrat mainstream media.

A source please?

LOL, try "voices in the head" media !

Reply 12

InnerTemple

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stop-the-constitutional-crisis_us_588fe608e4b080b3dad6fac3

There is also video of a congressman challenging airport police over failure to comply with a similar court order. The issue seemed to be that CBP officers were not complying with the order - and there was a fear that they were sending people back on flights.

Reply 13

OP

Original post by Mathemagicien

Holy ****. Trump is circumventing the courts? Who will stop this tyrant?

If nobody in power is willing to stand up to this brute, it is up to us the people to depose this despot.

That would also trash the rule of law. It's only two years until the midterms, the democrats could take control of congress even though it's an uphill battle for the Senate. Impeachment could then be effected.

Hell, he might even be impeached by his own party. He's historically unpopular, about as popular as Nixon was when the Watergate crisis was heating up.

He can be taken down, lawfully and legitimately. But patience is necessary. While Trump (and especially Bannon) are fascistic in their disposition, they're also idiots and will be brought down by their own incompetence. There will be no "frog in the boiling water" situation because they're incapable of impulse control; all they are capable of doing is increasing the opposition to themselves.

And they're incredibly thin-skinned; the last official White House press conference, press secretary Sean Spicer spent a good deal of time complaining about what people were saying about Trump on Twitter. These guys are exceptionally inscure, and their political thinking is completely based around the news cycle, not policy.

Reply 14

Fullofsurprises

It's interesting to read what Naomi Klein thinks about the new Trump government and how corporate interests were panicked into the current coup.
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/20/naomi_klein_on_trump_election_this

Reply 15

nulli tertius

21

Original post by InnerTemple

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stop-the-constitutional-crisis_us_588fe608e4b080b3dad6fac3

There is also video of a congressman challenging airport police over failure to comply with a similar court order. The issue seemed to be that CBP officers were not complying with the order - and there was a fear that they were sending people back on flights.

We have a rather hysterical article from a rather junior legal academic. But we don't have anything to this effect on the ACLU website or that of the Washington Post or New York Times. Where are the interviews with the deported or the relatives of the incarcerated in the US or foreign press?

Reply 16

InnerTemple