Will and can the DOJ prosecute Donald Trump for crimes? Maybe

(Formerly embedded in the July 21 posting and moved to this separate post, revised and updated. )

The most immediate question is if Trump and his allies are criminally prosecuted for what they did to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to give Trump a second term.  Maybe. There are some challenges.  It is not cut and dried. The purpose such criminal prosecution serves is not only to punish but to prevent Trump and others from trying it again.  It also will serve as educating voters about how close they came to losing democracy and also to be on alert it could still happen.

As the January 6 committee rested its case at least until fall, the spotlight is now on the Department of Justice led by  Attorney General Merrick Garland to decide whether to charge Trump with a crime via a grand jury. Not every shady practice is a crime on the books.  Dereliction of duty, the accusatory phrase used most in the January 6 hearings, is viewed as a crime in the military, but not in federal laws.   For any criminal charge, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the intent to commit a crime or directly commit ta chargeable crime on the books beyond a reasonable doubt.  That Garland does not exempt a former president from prosecution was confirmed recently in remarks he made.  No person, including Trump,  is above the law. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ag-garland-reiterates-person-trump-law-jan/story?id=87140695   The reasons put forth by some not to prosecute Trump is the fear that this sets a dangerous precedence that would impact future administrations. However, Trump's case was unique in our history. No president had ever attempted a coup to overturn an election. That is a specific case with specific facts and charges that threatened the very foundation of the rule of law and American democracy.   To let Trump off the hook would set even more dangerous precedence, giving green lights to him and other wannabes for attempting the same in the future, free of painful repercussions.

The Justice Department has a challenge in proving beyond a reasonable doubt Trump intentionally committed a crime.    Intent and a heavy burden of proof are elements needed to charge and convict anyone of a crime that is on the statute books.   Trump has a  long history of thumbing his nose at rules and laws. For him, the rule of law and abiding by laws are barriers to be ignored or gotten around. In his business life before becoming president, penalties, restitution, and lawyer fees were just the cost of doing business and they never deterred him from doing a similar dirty deed again.  Two impeachments didn't stop him nor did the Stormy daniels saga or the findings of civil fraud in the Trump University scheme.  None of this was a secret and sometimes his legal escapades made the headlines. . Declaring numerous bankruptcies was a  business strategy to avoid paying obligations.  Bullying and threats were his weapons.    To avoid loss in civil suits and possible criminal charges,  he learned to leave no fingerprints or evidence of potential culpability, shred documents that would be paper trails of shady practices, and forbad tape recordings like the one that ended Nixon's presidency and did not use email. Using lies to make his point was a good strategy, not a moral wrong.  The most current example, after being told by his family, his attorney general, and rulings by 60 judges, that the election was not stolen, he continued the big lie to fuel the events of January 6.

Trump couched his threats in parsed conversations. Direct evidence that Trump gave the orders for others to commit a crime would give the DOJ's case wings, but the next best can be testimony by witnesses that he intended to do so, his state of mind. and the circumstances around the event. The witness testimony under oath revealed by the January 6 committee was a very significant contribution to the evidence of Trump's state of mind.  His method of avoiding accountability for his actions was honed over the years. First came his ask and then hinting at a threat came somewhere else in the paragraph. Sometimes he just appealed for the loyalty to him he demanded. in return for continued support.  Classic examples were "find me those missing votes ", "get me more dirt on Hunter Biden", and "simply declare the electoral college votes a fraud, I'll take care of the rest". The following threat phrases were not spoken but implied: "I'll primary you", "ruin your political future", "not give you your anti-tank missiles " and  "do it even if you have to break the law or announce a faux investigation. "  That was the message his targets heard; they got it.  As his fixer/personal attorney  Michael Cohen who was jailed for hiding Trump'sexpenses in silencing Stormy Daniels, often related,  Trump gave no direct orders to his fixers and allies and lieutenants, but hinted at his wishes, expected them to do the dirty work,  and take the fall in silence if they got caught.    Direct evidence that Trump actually gave the orders for others to commit a crime would give the DOJ's case wings, but the next best evidence can be testimony by witnesses that he intended to do so, his state of mind. The witness testimony under oath revealed by the January 6 committee was likely the most significant contribution to the evidence of Trump's state of mind.

  Listening to the attorneys and legal experts commenting on TV over the past weeks and post-July 21 hearing, there are at least some possible charges. The next challenge is for the DOJ to present the evidence and case to a grand jury.to indict or charge Trump with probably causing a criminal act. The next DOJ decision is whether to go to trial by jury. Merrick Garland has recently indicated that no person, even the president, is above the law, so the indication is that he could charge the president if he so chose.  Most prosecutors usually proceed to a jury trial only if they believe they have a probable conviction, making them more cautious to act than the public would expect.

 1, The clearest thought on an appropriate charge so far I heard was presented by William Cohen this past week.on cable TV.  Cohen is a  Republican who served as both a member of the United States House of Representatives and Senate and as Secretary of Defense under Democratic President Bill Clinton.   He suggested the charge of an accessory to and after the commission of a crime.  Even if Trump did not directly execute the crime himself it is a crime to be an accessory, aiding, and abetting the execution of a crime. 

2. Conspiracy to commit sedition, is a charge already levied on the Proud Boys and Oath keepers. Treason itself cannot be charged unless we are at war. Seditious conspiracy is the peacetime version.  Overturning an election that is part of a  legitimate democratic process is likely a seditious act.  This is a very heavy lift to accuse a past president of something like treason. particularly undermined as a deterrent if no penalties result such as jail time.

3. To interfere with an official government function, is a crime.  The certification of the electoral count is an official government (and Constitutional) function.  This is an obvious one, but the consequences are not very severe.

4. Indict him as a co-conspirator, either unnamed or named. . Trump was the unnamed person number 1 in the Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen escapade.  Unnamed would be a slap with a wet noodle leaving the question of personal accountability charge as applied to him debated forever.. Its value would mostly be to educate the public about how unfit he was and is to be a president and to influence public opinion about him.  The only penalty levied would be making it more likely Trump will lose an attempt at a second term.

There are other charges out there, but these are the ones I heard most frequently.

Even then, how many of these charges are voters willing to tolerate or believe in his guilt in numbers enough to stop him at the ballot box even if he wins or is found guilty at trial. That is the ultimate question.

ed)

Courts have news for 30% of the GOP: Violence is not free speech; interfering with official procedures is a crime

Updated January 14, 2021.  The January 6 rioters had not been charged with sedition because of the difficulty in proving it. That changed when eleven Oath Keepers were indicted by a grand jury and were arrested on January 13.   charged with seditious conspiracy for violent attempts to overthrow the government. and planning it. One element leading to the indictment and charges is that the Oath Keeper'sleaderhsip's encrypted conversations using the ap "Signal" were cracked.  More frightening in the charging documents was not only did they plan for violence on January 6, they also had armed members ringing Washington DC ready to intervene with violence during and after January 6 with the purpose and training to foment not only a violent interference in the government process, including inauguration day but a civil war.. This is a serious game changer and a departure from the prior charges. It extends to those planning and leading the group who were not the ones entering the Capitol themselves.  The burning question is did these Oath Keeper leaders communicate and plan with anyone in the White House or even with the President'sained close advisors with Trump's blessing.   The special threat the Oath Keepers presented was that they claimed 20,000 "members" who were trained ex military, active and former law enforcement, and tr first responders.  What gave them away was their preparation with gear ready for anticipated violence.and training in the midst of an out-of-control mob of middle aged white men following their lead. that was caught on video.  They were prepared for a violent coup, not a stealthy one described by such legal advisers as John Eastman's infamous case for how to overturn the election by manipulating and  distorting the established process under the pretext that the election was stolen.  and  they could make some sort of a legal case to justify their actions.  The charges were not the sole design of the Department of Justice, but in federal criminal prosecution, they need the concurrence of a grand jury to indict and charge, as it was in this indictment of the Oath Keeprers leadership. Takeaways from the landmark sedition indictment against the Oath Keepers and why DOJ acted now - ABC17NEWS

 Before this indictment, the attention had been focused on the actual violent attackers of the Capitol themselves and overcoming the defense that the accused had just been using their first amendment rights of free speech protected by the Constitution to redress grievances.  (They ignored the "peaceful" word in that amendment). Imany prosecutors had attempted to charge a serious enough offense, a felony, with sufficient punishment to deter others from doing the same thing in the future. A series of lower federal court rulings have gone against the January 6 rioters' defenses.  Among their rulings:  violence is not free speech; interfering with official procedures is a felony crime. 

 Several recent federal court decisions have established that felonies were committed by interfering with official procedures and violence is not protected free speech regardless if it was used to make a political statement.  This may come as a shock to 30% of the GOP who feel it is their constitutional right to use violence to overturn an election in the name of protecting democracy. The courts will not have your backs if you act on it and make it your defense argument.

 Among those legal issues is whether violence to make a political point is protected free speech. In a recent case, the Proud Boys argued their violent acts were protected speech and the federal judge rejected their argument mostly on the basis that there were many other actions to protest protected by the First Amendment.  

Why is it important that the crime committed is a felony and not a misdemeanor? Is interfering with an official government procedure a felony that triggers serious jail sentences to deter others in the future? Are those who fomented, encouraged, permitted the violent act also guilty of a felony? Felony convictions are important because misdemeanors do not trigger serious federal investigations and penalties are not much of a deterrent to future wannabe incidents like January 6. Recent court rulings are these are felonies. 

   Does it follow the president and his coup conspirators are guilty of the felonies, too?  There is case law to that effect. That will be the legal case that could trip up Trump and his coup planners and this is the focus of the January 6 committee. The committee hearings will shed public light on the events of January 6 and may lead to legislation. Those charged so far with felonies or referred to the DOJ for criminal charges are the ones who refused to honor the committee's subpoenas and testify. The FBI and the Department of Justice could pursue such felony charges concerning any masterminds behind or directing the January 6 events, but so far have not shown much public enthusiasm to move forward on White House involvement.

The Jan. 6 rioters committed a felony by obstructing an official proceeding per recent rulings. On December 10, a Trump-appointed federal district judge ruled that it was a felony to obstruct an official proceeding. " On Friday, Dec. 10, the government won a key early ruling concerning a legal issue affecting hundreds of Jan. 6 Capitol Riot prosecutions. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich found that a central felony charge in a large subset of the Jan. 6 cases—“corruptly obstructing an official proceeding” —had been properly invoked and was not unconstitutionally vague."  (lawfareblog.com)

Other key federal court rulings have gone against the rioters from the ruling that violence committed on January 6 was indeed felonies, from assaulting police officers and attempting to stop an official procedure. Upheld was a conviction of a New Jersey rioter for assaulting the police on Jan.6 and the judge sentenced him to 44 months in prison:   The judge ruling, in that case, cited both assaulting the police officer and obstructing an official procedure. “It’s such a serious offense under the circumstances, an affront to society and to the law, to have the Capitol overrun and to have this riot stop the whole functioning government, that I just find that it’s such a serious crime that I cannot give a below-guideline sentence.” Scott Kevin Fairlamb is the first person sentenced for assaulting a police officer in the Capitol attack.Scott Fairlamb is the first Jan. 6 Capitol riot - The Washington Post

. Capitol Riot: Proud Boys’ Free-Speech Defense Rejected by Judge - Bloomberg 

Judge Rejects Free Speech Argument, Refuses to Dismiss Indictment Against Four Proud Boys (newsweek.com)

Government Wins Key Ruling on Issue Affecting Hundreds of Capitol Riot Cases - Lawfare (lawfareblog.com)

.  Lead Capitol riot charge is constitutional, judges find - The Washington Post  

 Judge Rejects Free Speech Argument, Refuses to Dismiss Indictment Against Four Proud Boys (newsweek.com)

Almost one in three of Republicans say violence may be necessary to ‘save’ US | Republicans | The Guardian

https://goldrushcam.com/sierrasuntimes/index.php/news/local-news/36001-leader-of-oath-keepers-and-10-other-individuals-indicted-in-federal-court-for-seditious-conspiracy-and-other-offenses-related-to-u-s-capitol-breach?tmpl=component

How the US almost became a banana republic

  In Central America there is a role model of bad governance we have tagged as banana republics, led by dictators and their cronies, enriching themselves while ignoring the needs of their citizens.   Those countries continue in power with inept, corrupt autocratic governance. . Military coups and violent revolutions are how regime change usually happens in such dictatorships, We ourselves came closer to becoming a banana republic within the past year in retrospect as more and more evidence of what happened emerges. Attempts by Donald Trump to execute a coup, overturn 2020 election results and stay in power a second term, may have failed, but they are characteristic of a wannabe dictator and there is no reason to believe that given the chance to be president again, he could become closer to achieving the power of the rule of a person instead of the rule of law. He would have the time and opportunity to replace the federal courts and the Justice Department with those willing to make judgment calls he favors.  If he controls both houses of Congress as well, the end of democracy as we know it, rule by the majority with rights protecting the minority, and any checks and balances on executive power, is dead.  Unfortunately for democracy, a sizeable amount of Republicans are happy to give him that chance.

A House Bi-partisan hearings on the January 6 riot have revealed much, as well as startling revelations in recent books by those in the know presenting strong evidence (Woodward-Costa amount them)'Peril' Review: Bob Woodward's New Book Uncovers The Trump Era's Final Moments : NPR. For now, subpoenas of those in the room where it happened will likely go to court. Trump tells 4 former aides to defy Jan. 6 committee's subpoena - POLITICO  While we wait for this to play out, we already know quite a bit to be alarmed. The red flags are flying that democracy is in peril.

Here is what we have learned so far:

. A president attempted to overturn an election with a coup using whatever means he could, from abuse of his power to outright lies to fomenting violence and terror. It was not a one event coup, it was a rolling attack with a variety of weapons.  ..The battle cry he used to reverse the results of the 2020 election,  "stop the steal,", was based on what he had been told was a lie.. The thief was him who tried to overturn the election results. He was told by his own attorney general their own investigations found no proof of widespread fraud that would have changed the election outcome, Trump persisted knowing this.  First, he tried with   lawsuits.  All such suits were thrown out of courts by 60 judges of all political stripes for lack of evidence. Update  10/8/21 Next, he tried to put in a loyalist to head the Justice Department to make it look like the allegations of voter fraud by investigating them look credible, but the entire brass of the DOJ threatened to resign.  Failing that, an attorney, John Eastman, then laid out a blueprint for how Trump could get his second term in spite of the election results, including conspiring with Vice President Pence to decertify the electoral vote count and throw the election into the House that gave one state one vote,and upholding Trump's second term.READ Trump lawyer's memo on a six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election - CNNPolitics. Pence, after considering that, told the president on January 5 he could not do it, even when Trump called him "no longer his friend".Pence Said to Have Told Trump He Lacks Power to Change Election Result - The New York Times (nytimes.com) The riot was supposed to give Pence the guts to make the decertifying call.  .  ,  Trump in a "stop the steal rally" in advance of the riot at the Capitol,   inspired a mob to terrify legislators into not certifying the election of his opponent. The attempt, too, failed. The election of Joe Biden was certified the night of January 6. Other efforts to upend the democratic process were tried and failed, including threatening state election officials "to go out and find" more votes for him..That conversation was recorded on tape.. We are hearing allegations by witnesses  Trump tried to enlist the active military to put down opposition demonstrators, a plan thwarted by the Joint Chiefs.

Trump's denials and lies have gained traction with a sizeable number of Republicans.  The violent overthrow of democratically elected governments is against the laws of all democracies because the right to protest and to change leaders with the ballot box is the peaceful alternative that is provided to dissidents as their civil rights are protected.   The violent takeover of governments,, however, is being openly supported by a sizeable number of the GOP..  Now, fully one-half of those who identify themselves as Republicans approve or do not care if tools are used to defy constitutional law and use violence to achieve their political goals.  Most Republicans Say Force May Be Required to Save 'Traditional' America: Poll (businessinsider.com. Fortunately for American democracy, these banana Republicans,  approving of autocracy also, are currently about 26% of the total electorate per a recent Morning Consult poll.26% of Americans Are Highly 'Right-Wing Authoritarian,' New Poll Finds (businessinsider.com)

  Trump pressure campaign: Durbin report details DOJ, White House meeting - The Washington Post    MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: Why General Milley is emerging as a hero who saved democracy

Interviews with former Justice Department officials provide new details on Trump efforts to undermine election results - CNNPolitics

MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: Trump's attempted coup by court has gone down in flames, as did the reputation of the GOP

https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2021/07/why-general-milley-is-emerging-as-hero.h

How Democracies Die is a 2018 comparative politics book by Harvard University political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt about how elected leaders can gradually subvert the democratic process to increase their power.

On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century

Book by Timothy D. Snyder

What if Pence and the DOK had done what the Eastman memo wanted to happen? 

https://wwww.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/13/how-close-were-we-an-actual-stolen-election-stolen-by-trump/

 

Trump goes coup coup

A version of this was published in the Sky Hi Daily News May 1, 2019
https://www.skyhinews.com/opinion/opinion-muftic-trump-goes-coup-coup-over-the-mueller-report/

After shouting to the world that the Mueller report exonerated  (cleared) him of both conspiracy with the Russians to tilt the 2016 election his way and of obstruction of justice, Donald Trump must have had a sobering moment when he realized that Mueller had not cleared him of obstruction of justice laid out at least ten instances of obstruction of justice committed by Donald Trump and his associates. Mueller then suggested  in  a footnote the remedy was either impeachment by Congress or indictment after he left office.

In his report, Mueller specifically wrote in plain English that Trump was not exonerated of obstruction of justice.  Trump must have hoped his followers had the same lack of reading comprehension skills he had, and they had not read the report themselves, either. In response, Trump played the victim card to explain to his core followers that the Mueller report and the FBI were engineering a coup d’état against him and now Congress wants to engineer another coup, too, by holding hearings that could lead to impeachment. For a prototype wannabe dictator that he is, a coup fits Trump’s view of government that exists for the purpose of putting him in power and keeping him there and a disdain for the rule of law, any investigations into his suspected wrongdoing, and the remedies holding him accountable that are written into our Constitution.  

The writers of our Constitution had a firm grasp of both English and world history and knew when tyranny reigned to the point of being unbearable or the king went off the rails into the land of incompetence, regime change was by a coup and sometimes a bloody one of palace intrigue and military force or civil war. The Game of Thrones is not all fiction.  Usually a coup d’état in modern times, especially in the recent past in South America, Turkey and Egypt, means the military steps in and ousts the person on the throne or presidential office. To avoid such bloody regime changes and to give the people’s representatives a voice in a democracy, our founders devised the impeachment process that is the law that rules.  The House would indict (impeach) and the Senate would convict. They laid out the rules and process, that would remove the president and others before the next election was held. Later the Constitution was amended to provide for removal with consent of cabinet members and much more. The FBI and the Office of Legal Counsel also had rules that prevented indicting a sitting president of a crime and Special Counsel Robert Mueller also followed that rule.  Trump’s appointed Attorney General Bill Barr was of a controversial and not widely accepted opinion that a president could not be convicted of obstructing justice since he was the head of justice and had the right to fire whomever he pleased. Those who disagree say a president could not get away with that that if he had a “corrupt” intent such as keeping himself in power.

To find evidence that could lead to prosecution or evidence of wrongdoing, a special prosecutor was appointed per federal statutes to conduct the investigation. Congress was also granted by the Constitution the power and duty to conduct their own investigations and issue subpoenas, just as they were empowered to impeach (indict) for “high crimes and misdemeanors” however they defined it and whatever the burden of proof they required.  The Supreme Court is cut out of the entire process except for chairing the Senate conviction proceedings.  Currently, Trump is stonewalling any subpoena and a Constitutional crisis is about to happen, with Trump claiming House hearings are conducting another coup attempt.  After the experience with the impeachment process of both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, changes were made to the process so that the special counsel had to report to the Attorney General. That process has been followed.  Trump loves to claim the whole investigation was illegal, but the letter of the federal law has been followed.

Donald Trump constantly claims even to today that the Russians did not help him get elected.  Mueller lays out in detail in over a hundred pages in his report and in earlier indictment court filings exactly how the Russians operated their propaganda targeting and methods of social media and spies on the US ground. It was not a matter of a few commercials, either. His conclusion: ““The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.”      Last week, Maria Butina was sentenced to 18 months in prison for being a Russian spy who had made her way into the very top halls of the NRA to help with the Russian interference in the 2016 election.

  Whatever happened to the counterintelligence investigation? It was not included in the Mueller report. Also left out of the Mueller report because Mueller did not investigate it, was whether Donald Trump was beholden to the Russians because of financial entanglements or that there were tapes that would prove an embarrassment to him. It is still a mystery why Trump fawns over Russian president Putin prefers to take Putin’s word over our own intelligence services. Why does Trump  sync his foreign policy with Putin’s desire to make Russia great again, lifting sanctions against Russian incursions into Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and weakening NATO’s mutual defense agreement to stop those Russian  threatened  land grabs into NATO  member territory from Montenegro in the Balkans in the south to the Baltics in the north.

____________________________________________________________________________

 To confuse his followers throughout the Mueller investigation, Trump had claimed there was no collusion, but Robert Mueller stated in his report that they never investigated whether there was collusion because that was not a term in the criminal statutes.  They investigated whether there was a conspiracy, a term in the criminal law meaning the participants got together and planned to commit a crime.  Mueller ruled no evidence of a conspiracy was found.  In a strange twist, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer in this matter in a public comment asked in so many words, so what is wrong with collusion, benefiting by evidence or measures, supplied by a foreign government and in a sense justifying the commission of collusion and tacit implying collusion happened.

So long as the law enforcers  were “on his side”, they were seen by Donald Trump as  loyal members of his team, but if they investigated and found some damning evidence, they were a deep state out to get him and conduct a coup to oust him from the White House.  The FBI inadvertently helped him get elected when their then director James Comey twice announced publicly in the late summer and  again Trump ten days before the election than Hillary Clinton was under criminal investigation for alleged misuse of emails and a server (and later said in both instances, there was no evidence found).  At the same time in July 2016 a counterintelligence investigation was underway by the FBI and other intelligence agencies motivated by suspicion that Donald Trump and his campaign associates and his pro-Putin foreign policy had many unexplained contacts with Russian operatives. The FBI kept that investigation secret.   The Mueller report owed the opening of the counterintelligence investigation to a Trump campaign associates’ drunken conversation with an Australian diplomat, who then tipped off the FBI. The  counterintelligence investigation was folded into the Mueller investigation.  In short, the deep state helped Trump win, cleared him of conspiracy with the Russians, and yet did not clear him of obstruction of the investigation into the Russian connection.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/25/napolitano_why_was_president_trump_not_charged_with_obstruction_of_justice_is_the_president_above_the_law.html

The Freedom Caucus is becoming an oxymoron.

Revised November 12, 2017
 Version of this published as a column in the Sky Hi News, November 15, 2015 p 7  www.skyhidailynews.com

"Keeping up  with the Mueller investigation  will risk a coup d'etat"  could be taken as   an implied  threat  by  hard core members of  the  Congressional Freedom Caucus even though it is couched in terms of an outcome  if  Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller continues his investigation  into Donald Trump's administration. http://www.newsweek.com/us-risks-coup-if-mueller-investigation-continues-say-republicans-706421

Have they lost their minds? What they are saying is frightening. Within our democratic form a government, impeachment is the method of regime change.  By definition, a coup d'etat is" the sudden attempt by a small group of people to take over the government usually through violence." (Merriam-Webster) .A coup , a  non democratic power takeover, destroys any pretext of freedom and begins a chain of counter coups, economy killing instability, and civil war. Including the word "freedom"  in their caucus name itself is  an oxymoron, the opposite of what they say they stand for.

The Freedom Caucus' reasoning is  they believe Special Prosecutor  Robert Mueller is getting revenge  against Pres. Trump for the firing of Mueller's  friend,  fired FBI director  James Comey. Per chief advocate Rep. Matt Gaetz  of Florida that Mueller as former FBI director failed to prosecute Hillary Clinton on the Uranium One deal where the right wing alleged there was bribery that involved Russian investments.  Therefore, there is an appearance of a conflict of interest, they say. There is no evidence that Mueller is investigating Clinton as part of the Russian probe. It remains a conspiracy theory since even the accusers have presented no evidence Clinton intervened  on behalf of the State Department in the issue to pressure the other eight agencies who also reviewed and  approved the deal.  That these theories and suspicions are a  cause for dismissal will not fly, given the overwhelming accolades  of his competence and independence that followed Mueller's appointment. Firing for cause means that there is incompetence or abuse of power that is provable.  Suspecting political motivations do not count as a cause. The problem for the Freedom Caucus  is that Mueller's competence has been so  credibly demonstrated in his  meticulous and detailed  indictments, he  has now become  a serious  threat to their hero, Donald Trump.

 These Freedom Caucus members  are divorced from reality  for even suggesting a coup could happen.  A coup  by whom? Some  volunteer militia out there? Alt right activists waiving torches?  By the generals  in the administration like White House Chief of Staff, John F Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, and National Security Adviser  H.R.McMaster,   men  well educated in political science whose oath  of office includes a duty to democracy and the Constitution? 

The founders of our country and the Constitution warned us about such kinds of threats to democracy.  .That is  why they provided the impeachment process in the Constitution, the alternative to coups, armed insurrections,  and revolution to determine the legitimate  ruler. Impeachment is the more  likely outcome of the Russian connection investigation if Trump were to fire Mueller, his ultimate act of obstruction of justice. The GOP dominated  House of Representatives would never begin the  impeachment process. Flipping it blue to impeach Trump  would at minimum become  the dominating 2018 campaign issue.

 These members of  the  Freedom Caucus  must have slept through  history classes,  much less civics. History of the past hundred years  is littered with failed states with countries who trashed their democratic institutions.  A lesson from history:  a warning that without citizen support, democracy is  damned. Most dictators and autocrats from banana republics to large industrialized  countries gained power by popular vote, flaunting laws established in their governing documents, including  Hitler, who was elected to office.  Once gaining power in the voting booth, they set about ignoring or  eating alive any constraints on their power. It is happening now in Russia, Turkey, elsewhere.    Those who care about our Constitution and rule of law need to start speaking out loudly.

_________________________________________________________________________________
From history and current events, we can see what we could repeat. As the French Revolution unfolded, even the inventor of the guillotine eventually  fell to its blade as the revolution got out of control. Coups blow   back even on their instigators.  What goes around has a way of coming around. The next half century of the 1800's resulted in Napoleon's reign  and restoration of monarchy.  Because of our newly minted Constitution, America did not fall into that trap. 
Fareed Zakaria outlines how that is happening within our memories and now. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-saudi-crown-princes-power-grab-follows-a-strongmans-playbook/2017/11/09/167d35fe-c593-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html

_____________________________________________________________________________

So what is  wrong with a military coup and rule by the military that motivated our founders to set up safeguards against military coups? Military rule is hard on both sides of a conflict and destabilizing. Our founders  realized that and put civilians with power over  the military. 

Janet Schaw, a Scot visiting her brother , likely an English loyalist in Wilmington  North Carolina, in 1775, wrote of her time in the colonies:"At present the martial law stands thus: An officer or committeeman enters a plantation with his posse. The alternative is proposed. Agree to join us [Whigs] and your persons and properties are safe . . . if you refuse, we are directly to cut up your corn, shoot your pigs, burn your houses, … and perhaps tar and feather yourself. Not to choose the first requires more courage than they are possessed"  http://mentalfloss.com/article/60917/8-complaints-real-colonists-had-about-british-rule

https://www.salon.com/2017/11/09/a-republican-congressman-is-calling-for-robert-mueller-to-be-fired/


http://www.newsweek.com/us-risks-coup-if-mueller-investigation-continues-say-republicans-706421