> On the contrary, we're totally in a position to determine that
> [whether the fears of Obama's transition team were well-
> founded or imaginary].
I should have spoken for myself. I don't know if those fears were grounded in reality or imaginary. Maybe Obama had credible inside info or specific offer he couldn't refuse. It seems to me that, in spite of the legal constraints, CIA, Pentagon, and NSA are perfectly capable of domestic subversion. They do it abroad, where (admittedly) it's easier for them to conduct it. But, I believe that, if the stakes are high, they are absolutely capable of doing it domestically.
It wasn't so long ago that a president, a presidential candidate with populist inclinations, and a prominent civil rights leader were assassinated. On the other hand, I suppose that de-facto powers would leave assassinations and coups as measures of last resort. So, I really don't know.
> Julio, did you read the thing you forwarded? "Coup" and "revolt"
> are meant completely metaphorically. All it means is total
> opposition from Republicans to Obama's policies. Which is
> exactly what they got.
I did read it. Here's the passage prior to the one about Republican opposition:
"But she [Susan Harman, the pacifist] did ask questions. Edley responded that Obama’s team feared that leadership in the U.S. armed forces, the CIA and NSA might “revolt” if the new Obama administration prosecuted war crimes by U.S. authorities and lower-ranking personnel."
In its face, a revolt by the U.S. armed forces, the CIA, and NSA is not a political brouhaha, congressional obstruction to sabotage Obama's reelection. No, anyway you wish to read that, it seemed like more serious business.
After that part, Andrew Kreig continues: "Also, Edley told Harman that his fellow decision-makers on Obama's team feared that a prosecution inquiry could lead to Republican efforts to thwart the Obama agenda in Congress." I suppose you referred to this. Well, note the "also."
Chuck Grimes wrote:
> The president has the power to dismiss at will any appointee in the
> executive branch. No revolt was possibly a threat. Assassination is
> a possibility for every president. Obama had the Congress in the
> palm of his hand with Reid and Pelosi.
As Doug wrote, the power of a president is constrained by "enduring institutional structures." Vested interest creates cabals that, depending on circumstances, may be willing to act transgressively to protect themselves. Granted: legal constraints have some degree of objectivity, but actual force -- the deployment of destructive, killing-machine type of labor power, even if in spite of existing law, is an even harder type of objectivity. No constitution can stop a bullet in mid flight.