UPDATED: How Bad Is Our Constitutional Crisis?

This bad.

Today the NYT ran an Op-ed by a retired admiral:

Our Republic Is Under Attack From the President

If President Trump doesn’t demonstrate the leadership that America needs, then it is time for a new person in the Oval Office.

I suspect that there are still more than a few people out there who think: Every other institution in our country may be hopelessly corrupt, but at least the military isn't. In the military, merit and character are rewarded. Our armed forces are populated by nothing but self sacrificing heroes--thanks for your service! Of course that's utterly naive. But the fact remains that that view is still held by many, so that for an admiral to take this position publicly is important. It's also important because, although this is a retired admiral, in his article he basically puts himself forward as speaking for the military. And I don't doubt that he does speak for many of the top ranks--who are as a group as corrupt as any other sector of the Deep State. We saw in the Obama years a disturbing willingness in the military to flat out defy the CinC over policy matters, with no consequences. That precedent is coming home to roost quite literally with overt involvement in domestic politics.

Now, ask yourself: What could it possibly mean to say that "Our Republic Is Under Attack From the President"? What does that attack consist of? From my standpoint President Trump has been exemplary in his devotion to the rule of law and upholding constitutional government. Absolutely exemplary. So what is this admiral talking about? Here it is--here's what he claims is an attack on our Republic:

These men and women, of all political persuasions, have seen the assaults on our institutions: on the intelligence and law enforcement community, the State Department and the press. They have seen our leaders stand beside despots and strongmen, preferring their government narrative to our own. They have seen us abandon our allies and have heard the shouts of betrayal from the battlefield. As I stood on the parade field at Fort Bragg, one retired four-star general, grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, “I don’t like the Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!” 

Those words echoed with me throughout the week. It is easy to destroy an organization if you have no appreciation for what makes that organization great. We are not the most powerful nation in the world because of our aircraft carriers, our economy, or our seat at the United Nations Security Council. We are the most powerful nation in the world because we try to be the good guys. We are the most powerful nation in the world because our ideals of universal freedom and equality have been backed up by our belief that we were champions of justice, the protectors of the less fortunate. 

But, if we don’t care about our values, if we don’t care about duty and honor, if we don’t help the weak and stand up against oppression and injustice — what will happen to the Kurds, the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Syrians, the Rohingyas, the South Sudanese and the millions of people under the boot of tyranny or left abandoned by their failing states? 

If our promises are meaningless, how will our allies ever trust us? If we can’t have faith in our nation’s principles, why would the men and women of this nation join the military? And if they don’t join, who will protect us? If we are not the champions of the good and the right, then who will follow us? And if no one follows us — where will the world end up? 

President Trump seems to believe that these qualities are unimportant or show weakness. 

And he concludes:

And if this president doesn’t understand their importance, if this president doesn’t demonstrate the leadership that America needs, both domestically and abroad, then it is time for a new person in the Oval Office — Republican, Democrat or independent — the sooner, the better.

I take that as a call for impeachment. A hypocritical call for "bipartisan" removal of an elected president without consulting the electorate by a Deep State denizen who stands shoulder to shoulder with--really--John Brennan. Clearly the American elite fears that, unless removed, President Trump will be reelected. 

But now look at his claims of an attack on our republic. Of what do Trump's attacks consist? Well, it's pretty clear that Trump's great sin is a rejection of Globalism. According to the admiral, the purpose of our republic is to go around the world being "good guys" by attacking "oppression and injustice." Trump rejects that notion. And for that sin he must be removed, to make American safe for ... the Deep State elites to continue as before, unchecked by elections. That's a strange view of what it means to have a republic, but it's one that's clearly widely shared among our elites--who want nothing better than to see government of the people, by the people, for the people, perish from the earth. 

"We" are, he says, "champions of justice, the protectors of the less fortunate." Right. Tell that to the Yazidis and the Middle East Christians, whose communities have been devastated by the barbarism of ISIS and al Qaeda--the barbarism that the Obama administration essentially gave birth to. Who cares to do a tally of the casualties that have resulted from our "regime change" wars--let alone the sheer human misery. As for Trump supposedly standing beside "despots and strongmen, preferring their government narrative to our own," consider how other nations view the admiral's claim to "good guy" status when they see our elite staging a coup in Ukraine, then looting that country while it's plunged into unnecessary civil strife. 

And who exactly is this "we" that he speaks of? I thought our elections for president were to determine and define who "we" is, but this admiral has a different definition:

men and women, of all political persuasions, have seen the assaults on our institutions: on the intelligence and law enforcement community, the State Department and the press.

So there you have it. Notice that he doesn't mention Congress--probably because that institution is held in such low esteem that it would be unwise to mention them. But from this we see that Congress is supposed to nullify a national election to protect the status quo ante of "our institutions": "the intelligence and law enforcement community, the State Department and the press." In other words: the CIA, the FBI, State, and CNN/NYT/WaPo/etc. What we see from this is not that Trump is attacking "our republic," but that he's upholding a republic over against the Deep State dreams of Empire.

We've come to a dangerous pass when retired admirals speak this way without public rebuke. And when our press organs freely promote such talk. This is a perfect example of why I was so exercised yesterday about the desertion of the House GOPe and the statements of McConnell.

UPDATE: Prompted by commenter Anonymous, I add ...

Consider that this POS retired admiral and Hillary fan (h/t DJT) has the nerve to decry attacks on "our institutions ... the press" while that institution has bombarded the American public with insane and false conspiracy theories for three years running. And his preferred candidate is still pushing Russia Hoax BS:

The former secretary of state pushed the theory on Campaign HQ podcast hosted by David Plouffe, President Barack Obama’s campaign manager in 2008. 

Plouffe and Clinton discussed hurdles the Democratic nominee would face and compared the 2020 race to Clinton’s loss to Trump in 2016. Plouffe asked Clinton about the part third-party candidates, such as Jill Stein of the Green Party, played in 2016, allowing Trump to secure key states. 

"They are also going to do third party again," Clinton, 71, said. "I'm not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, referring to Gabbard, without mentioning the Hawaii representative by name. 

"She is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she is also a Russian asset."

Hillary appears to be parrotting the line put out by the NYT, another key pillar institution of our republic:

Gabbard accused the New York Times of calling her a "Russian asset."

The newspaper published an Oct. 12 news article about Gabbard stating, "She is injecting a bit of chaos into her own party’s primary race, threatening to boycott that debate to protest what she sees as a 'rigging' of the 2020 election. That’s left some Democrats wondering what, exactly, she is up to in the race, while others worry about supportive signs from online bot activity and the Russian news media."

Gabbard said on the debate stage: "The New York Times and CNN have also smeared veterans like myself for calling for an end to this regime change war [in Syria]. Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I’m a Russian asset and an Assad apologist, and all these different smears."