John Dean, Real Democratic Desperation

[trixare4kids]

A soft coup, sometimes referred to as a Silent coup, is a coup d'état without the use of violence, but based on a conspiracy or plot that has as its objective the taking of state power by partially or wholly illegal means, in order to facilitate an exchange of political leadership - and in some cases also of the current institutional order.

A soft coup is a strategy attributed to the American political scientist Gene Sharp, a Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, who has been a theorist and author of groundbreaking works on the dynamics of nonviolent conflict. He studied the potential to spark, guide, and maximize the power of sometimes short-lived mass uprisings, as he tried to understand how unarmed insurrections have been far more politically significant than observers focused on military warfare have cared to admit. Soft coup - Wikipedia

Thank you.

Kids say the strangest things, perhaps because most can't think beyond their own noses.

 

[trixare4kids]

:lamo The only one missing the boat today, sister, is you.

I know how debates work. Apparently you don’t know how logic works. You’re asking me to prove a negative. That isn’t possible (in case you didn’t realize it).

Tell ya what, I’ll provide you with the definition of coup, and you explain the makings (people, actions contemplated/carried out in furtherance if a coup, etc.) of the coup you believe that was attempted.

Definition of coup in English:
coup

(also coup d'état)
A sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.

Okay, trix, your turn.

Red herring, ad hominem fail.
I see you haven't been able to disprove my point above yet. What you describe is a military coup, a hostile takeover.
Try thinking for a change... and better luck next time.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

A soft coup, sometimes referred to as a Silent coup, is a coup d'état without the use of violence, but based on a conspiracy or plot that has as its objective the taking of state power by partially or wholly illegal means, in order to facilitate an exchange of political leadership - and in some cases also of the current institutional order.

A soft coup is a strategy attributed to the American political scientist Gene Sharp, a Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, who has been a theorist and author of groundbreaking works on the dynamics of nonviolent conflict. He studied the potential to spark, guide, and maximize the power of sometimes short-lived mass uprisings, as he tried to understand how unarmed insurrections have been far more politically significant than observers focused on military warfare have cared to admit. Soft coup - Wikipedia

Thanks for the irrelevant bit of information.

Not what trix or Trump have said. Coup.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

He served a sentence for a felony, and yes, he was imprisoned at Fort Holabird.

None of your strawmen change facts.
Maybe you should check facts before prattling, and pretending John Dean got off scot-free. :mrgreen:

Watergate: Who Did What and Where Are They Now? - HISTORY



eta: some friendly advice--don't ever play Trivia. Facts are not your thing.

Sorry, trix, you’re wrong.

Like I said, Fort Holabird was not a prison. Just because you cite a reference from History.com does not mean that it is accurate.

Stop looking for the quickest/easiest way to be wrong. Research the actual source next time.
Fort Holabird - Wikipedia

* And stop putting words in my mouth. Nobody likes a liar.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

What would you call it



He spent 4 Months incarcerated at Maryland’s Fort Holabird for conspiracy to obstruct justice, in a reduced sentence for cooperating with prosecutors.



Sure they are. Ever heard of a subpoena before. They will never have him testify.


Yeah think. Maybe it was satire for the letters he wrote approving of Trump Democrats used for months to associate Trump to Bulger. Guess you didn't know that



Its guys like you who prefer jumping on semantics rather than commenting on the post because you find it embarrassing, jut like everyone else does.

1. A Congressional hearing on obstruction, because that’s what the Chairman called it.

2. I said Dean did not go to prison. That was 100% accurate.

3. You and Trump hope so.

4. Not what I was referring to. Pay better attention.

5. Guys like me jump on false/ignorant statements that guys like you consistently make.

 

[Gary]

Dean didn't go to prison, he was held in protective custody due to death threats. As I recall, he was sentenced to prison, but the time expired while in protective custody. It's not unusual for someone to avoid prison if they help the government and Dean surely did.

 

[Condor060]

1. A Congressional hearing on obstruction, because that’s what the Chairman called it.

Yet every Liberal media outlet is screaming Impeachment hearings. Go figure. Sounds like more flip flopping just to make a political point

2. I said Dean did not go to prison. That was 100% accurate.

So what do you call being incarcerated for 4 months at a military facility for a felony conviction? Vacation?

3. You and Trump hope so.

We know so. Mueller will never testify and he made it very clear. He couldn't withstand the questions about his report. Why would the lead investigator refuse to testify about his own report? Pretty simple math here.

4. Not what I was referring to. Pay better attention.

I used Bulder as Satire. You said he is dead. I said (Yeah think) so what am I missing here.

5. Guys like me jump on false/ignorant statements that guys like you consistently make.

Looks more like what it is. You can't argue the facts so you divulge into semantics. Whats next, corrective spelling?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Thank you.

Kids say the strangest things, perhaps because most can't think beyond their own noses.

And some people regularly say ignorant and inflammatory things without understanding what they’re talking about. People like you.

 

[Trump]

Why do you accept this corruption?

I can't take you serious.

Dems accuse Trump of Treason and now want impeachment for Obstruction....so blinded by TDS reality has left the building.

Mueller Deniers syndrome ....or Mueller Truthers....You believed Maddow and she sold you folks snake oil ....Stop its really embarrassing.

 

[Condor060]

Dean didn't go to prison, he was held in protective custody due to death threats. As I recall, he was sentenced to prison, but the time expired while in protective custody. It's not unusual for someone to avoid prison if they help the government and Dean surely did.

Dean was held in protective custody during his testimony and depositions. He was incarcerated in a military institution for 4 months after the trials were over. Most likely to keep him alive while serving his sentence.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Red herring, ad hominem fail.
I see you haven't been able to disprove my point above yet. What you describe is a military coup, a hostile takeover.
Try thinking for a change... and better luck next time.

No ad hominem fail. You made up something I did not say. That’s called lying where I come from.

You said coup, not soft coup, or any other variation. Stop trying to bs your way out of an absurd claim. And even if you wanted to claim a “soft coup”, you couldn’t even come up with a believable story.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Dean was held in protective custody during his testimony and depositions. He was incarcerated in a military institution for 4 months after the trials were over. Most likely to keep him alive while serving his sentence.

Dude, you’re flat out lying now. Shame.

 

[HumblePi]

If Democrats really believed Trump had committed Conspiracy or Obstruction, Why would you lead off your Impeachment Hearings with John Dean who was convicted for his cover up in the 1970s Watergate scandal. He is a convicted felon, a CNN commentator, who has compared every president with his and Nixon's criminal activities, has no evidence, was not involved in any investigation, and has no connection to the Mueller report?

Because this is how desperate Democrats have become. Its a joke at best. John Dean was the architect of the Watergate scandal. He was disbarred and sent to prison for his crimes during the Nixon administration.

Democrats don't have the balls to attempt an Impeachment so instead of subpoenaing the first logical witness (Mueller) who is the architect of the report and the lead investigator, or any attorney on the special counsel or any FBI investigator, or any former witness, they bring in a CNN commentator? Unfortunately for Democrats, their asinine attempt to put on this clown show wasn't aired because of the Helicopter crash in New York.

Who are the Democrats going to bring in next, Whitey Bulger? Jerry Nadler is an embarrassment to this country.

Because of the total obstructionism (which in itself is an impeachable offense) Trump presented by refusing to allow anyone that had been subpoenaed to testify, democrats had few options to drill it into the dull brains of republicans in Congress as to how serious Trump's offenses outlined in the Mueller report actually are.

Having John Dean testify as to what or what isn't an impeachable offense was creating the roadmap that seems to be necessary for republicans to understand the seriousness of the Mueller findings. John Dean has an eidetic memory, which means he's able to recall not only details, but the tiniest minutia precisely, even to the date and time of that detail. Joyce White Vance, former U.S. Attorney; John Malcolm, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation; and Barbara McQuade, former U.S. Attorney were all called as expert witnesses.

Republicans had an expert of their own from the Heritage Foundation to defend Trump — whom the report implicates in at least 10 instances of possible obstruction — instead, they used their time to engage in tantrums and speeches, sometimes not even asking a single question.

It's like having the need to speak baby-talk to republicans since the majority of republicans in Congress haven't read all of the Mueller report and a small percentage have only read passages of it that were pointed out to them. On May 15th, Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) and more than 20 Democratic representatives read out the entire redacted Mueller report at the Capitol. The reading was streamed live and took roughly 11 hrs and 55 min. The live reading was also covered on CSPAN-3.

Scanlon suggested the live reading would help shed light on the details of the report that many will not have read in full. “We've been saying for weeks that if you think there was no obstruction and no collusion, you haven't read the Mueller report. So the ongoing quest has been, ‘How do we get that story out there while we are waiting for the witnesses to come in?'" Scanlon told the Post.

Scanlon had organized the reading because of the report's "serious substance." "This report cannot be summarized in a tweet or four pages, a headline or a news article, and this is another way of delivering the substance of this report to the American people—the truth they deserve." Who here watched it or have read the entire report? Who wants to? Republicans in Congress don't want to because if they did they would have to face the facts that Mueller found at least 10 instances of obstruction of justice.

I realize that people here like their news spoon-fed them in bullet points or short bursts of narrative, but for anyone that wants to know what is contained in the Mueller report, here it is in entirety. Volume II deals with obstruction. I've read most of Vol II.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yet every Liberal media outlet is screaming Impeachment hearings. Go figure. Sounds like more flip flopping just to make a political point


So what do you call being incarcerated for 4 months at a military facility for a felony conviction? Vacation?


We know so. Mueller will never testify and he made it very clear. He couldn't withstand the questions about his report. Why would the lead investigator refuse to testify about his own report? Pretty simple math here.


I used Bulder as Satire. You said he is dead. I said (Yeah think) so what am I missing here.


Looks more like what it is. You can't argue the facts so you divulge into semantics. Whats next, corrective spelling?

I got one thing to say about your silly reply above; learn the definition of divulge.

 

[Gary]

Dean was held in protective custody during his testimony and depositions. He was incarcerated in a military institution for 4 months after the trials were over. Most likely to keep him alive while serving his sentence.

Have you seen his testimony in Congress and I have? Ifhe was sent to prison, it would be dumb as hell to claim he was never in prison in front of Congress.

 

[Condor060]

Because of the total obstructionism (which in itself is an impeachable offense) Trump presented by refusing to allow anyone that had been subpoenaed to testify, democrats had few options to drill it into the dull brains of republicans in Congress as to how serious Trump's offenses outlined in the Mueller report actually are.

Having John Dean testify as to what or what isn't an impeachable offense was creating the roadmap that seems to be necessary for republicans to understand the seriousness of the Mueller findings. John Dean has an eidetic memory, which means he's able to recall not only details, but the tiniest minutia precisely, even to the date and time of that detail. Joyce White Vance, former U.S. Attorney; John Malcolm, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation; and Barbara McQuade, former U.S. Attorney were all called as expert witnesses.

I have read the report and I do see the point you are trying to make. But I have a few concerns that these lawyers, investigators, and officials seem to not want to address. I would oppose any sitting president for obstructing or conspiring with a foreign nation to change the outcome of any US election.

So if you want my support to Impeach a sitting president in the current circumstances this is what needs to happen. I am telling you how to gain the support of most Americans in this process, if you chose to dismiss it as opinion, its on you.

1. Mueller, team members, and witnesses must testify.
Mueller lied to the American public when he stated he can't recommend any criminal findings. And now he refuses to testify (which he made clear in his public statement)

Question: Why would the lead investigator refuse to testify about his own findings? This leaves everyone with the suspicion that his report is filled with one sided allegations not supported by other evidence or there is some connection about the origination of the FISA applications and Mueller.

2. After they Special counsel made up of super lawyers and FBI investigators have not dug up enough evidence to make a criminal recommendation, why is it important to read the transcript of a report that has no evidence to support criminal recommendations?

3. The DOJ and the Attorney General have both determined that no conspiracy or obstruction exist.

These are all problems for most to support an Impeachment process. No amount of discussion is going to overcome the current situation. If Mueller refuses or doesn't testify, this is nothing but another witch hunt for a political end.

If Mueller changes his mind, testifies, and provides evidence and witnesses to support criminal charges, most will follow through. I know I will.

Even the suggestion of bringing in John Dean is a comical stunt in most minds. If Democrats continue down this John Dean look alike path, this is going to end up exactly what it looks like. A joke.

Mueller and his team are the ONLY key to success. If the actual authors of the Mueller report won't testify, what does that tell every person watching these hearings. It looks like a cover up and we add fuel to the fire by asking convicted felons to testify on subject matter they were not involved in.

 

[Condor060]

Looks more like what it is. You can't argue the facts so you divulge into semantics. Whats next, corrective spelling?

I got one thing to say about your silly reply above; learn the definition of divulge.

You just make it so easy. Get baited much? Thanks for making my point. Maybe if you spent more time on the content of the conversation instead of being a hall monitor you might be able to formulate an opinion and produce something of value. If your looking for punctuation, definitions, and spelling errors to prove your value, most of us left that in elementary school.

 

[Gary]

You just make it so easy. Get baited much? Thanks for making my point. Maybe if you spent more time on the content of the conversation instead of being a hall monitor you might be able to formulate an opinion and produce something of value. If your looking for punctuation, definitions, and spelling errors to prove your value, most of us left that in elementary school.

Speaking of elementary school, so what if you get a call from the brat next door saying your house is burning down? Would you ignore it or investigate?

I wasn't around during Dean's life, but I have enough sense to know lying to Congress is dumb as hell. Put him in jail if you have the proof or only prove it for this forum. What difference does it make anyway? The fact is Don tRump has resisted all attempts for Congress to oversee his Presidency as if the Constitution doesn't exist. Just him telling others to resist subpoenas is enough to impeach him.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

You just make it so easy. Get baited much? Thanks for making my point. Maybe if you spent more time on the content of the conversation instead of being a hall monitor you might be able to formulate an opinion and produce something of value. If your looking for punctuation, definitions, and spelling errors to prove your value, most of us left that in elementary school.

Some of you never completed elementary school. And I didn’t say squat about your spelling/punctuation. I suggested you learn the definition of a word you clearly don’t know.

All Trumpsters operate with at least one handicap. Why not try to compensate by at least posting coherent comments?

 

[Gary]

I have read the report and I do see the point you are trying to make. But I have a few concerns that these lawyers, investigators, and officials seem to not want to address. I would oppose any sitting president for obstructing or conspiring with a foreign nation to change the outcome of any US election.

So if you want my support to Impeach a sitting president in the current circumstances this is what needs to happen. I am telling you how to gain the support of most Americans in this process, if you chose to dismiss it as opinion, its on you.

1. Mueller, team members, and witnesses must testify.
Mueller lied to the American public when he stated he can't recommend any criminal findings. And now he refuses to testify (which he made clear in his public statement)

Question: Why would the lead investigator refuse to testify about his own findings? This leaves everyone with the suspicion that his report is filled with one sided allegations not supported by other evidence or there is some connection about the origination of the FISA applications and Mueller.

2. After they Special counsel made up of super lawyers and FBI investigators have not dug up enough evidence to make a criminal recommendation, why is it important to read the transcript of a report that has no evidence to support criminal recommendations?

3. The DOJ and the Attorney General have both determined that no conspiracy or obstruction exist.

These are all problems for most to support an Impeachment process. No amount of discussion is going to overcome the current situation. If Mueller refuses or doesn't testify, this is nothing but another witch hunt for a political end.

If Mueller changes his mind, testifies, and provides evidence and witnesses to support criminal charges, most will follow through. I know I will.

Even the suggestion of bringing in John Dean is a comical stunt in most minds. If Democrats continue down this John Dean look alike path, this is going to end up exactly what it looks like. A joke.

Mueller and his team are the ONLY key to success. If the actual authors of the Mueller report won't testify, what does that tell every person watching these hearings. It looks like a cover up and we add fuel to the fire by asking convicted felons to testify on subject matter they were not involved in.

Mueller explained it all with his announcement, perhaps you should find it on YouTube. Mueller investigated and passed the ball to Congress.

 

[Trump]

Speaking of elementary school, so what if you get a call from the brat next door saying your house is burning down? Would you ignore it or investigate?

I wasn't around during Dean's life, but I have enough sense to know lying to Congress is dumb as hell. Put him in jail if you have the proof or only prove it for this forum. What difference does it make anyway? The fact is Don tRump has resisted all attempts for Congress to oversee his Presidency as if the Constitution doesn't exist. Just him telling others to resist subpoenas is enough to impeach him.

This whole BS story started at the highest level of the CIA/NSA/FBI...it didn't work its way through normal chain of command... low level foot soldiers using due diligence in developing case...it was a sham created at the top.

and you wanna impeach a President for getting mad at being called a Traitor.....doesn't that sound a bit silly?

Obstruction of what? No crime and Mueller report was finished....I do like smell of desperation...keep it up

 

[Condor060]

Some of you never completed elementary school. And I didn’t say squat about your spelling/punctuation. I suggested you learn the definition of a word you clearly don’t know.

All Trumpsters operate with at least one handicap. Why not try to compensate by at least posting coherent comments?

And every Liberal has the same common denominator. Beating the same drum over and over looking for a different result. We do enjoy the show.

 

[Condor060]

Speaking of elementary school, so what if you get a call from the brat next door saying your house is burning down? Would you ignore it or investigate?

Better question would be, if he did it 24/7 for over 2 years, at what point would you consider it to be BS

I wasn't around during Dean's life, but I have enough sense to know lying to Congress is dumb as hell. Put him in jail if you have the proof or only prove it for this forum. What difference does it make anyway? The fact is Don tRump has resisted all attempts for Congress to oversee his Presidency as if the Constitution doesn't exist. Just him telling others to resist subpoenas is enough to impeach him.

A 100 thousand pages of documents isn't resisting. If you are looking to have a do over from the Mueller report, he has every right to deny your inquest. Which he has done and nobody is charging him over it so theres that.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

And every Liberal has the same common denominator. Beating the same drum over and over looking for a different result. We do enjoy the show.

Congratulations, you’ve graduated from using words improperly to total incoherency.

Also, I’m not a liberal. Past time for you Trumpsters to realize that Dems/libs aren’t the only anti-Trumpers.

 

[Condor060]

And every Liberal has the same common denominator. Beating the same drum over and over looking for a different result. We do enjoy the show.

Congratulations, you’ve graduated from using words improperly to total incoherency.

Also, I’m not a liberal. Past time for you Trumpsters to realize that Dems/libs aren’t the only anti-Trumpers.

Didn't realize the post accused you of being a Liberal. Maybe that's why you can't understand the sentence or think its incoherent. Might I suggest a bit more hooked on phonics.