By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The author concludes that the owner’s actions, specifically his refusal to commit to a vigorous free press, demonstrate a lack of concern for democracy. This stance aims to transform The Washington Post into a weakened publication incapable of its crucial role in holding power accountable. Despite current staffing levels, the article suggests that continued financial losses will inevitably lead to further cutbacks and a diminished Post. Ultimately, the owner appears to have chosen allegiance with figures who undermine democratic principles over supporting a robust press.
Read the original article here
It can now be plainly said: Trump is planning a November coup d’état. This isn’t a matter of speculation anymore; the signs are too numerous and too explicit to ignore. The core of this plan, as it’s being outlined, involves seizing control of the electoral process, particularly if the outcome doesn’t favor him. There’s a chilling certainty that if the choice for Trump is between accepting a Democratic-controlled Congress or plunging the country into a constitutional crisis by rejecting election results, he will unequivocally choose the latter.
The upcoming November elections are, in many respects, a critical litmus test for the very survival of American democracy. We all know he will attempt to subvert the results. The real question that hangs heavy in the air is whether the Republican senators and the Supreme Court possess the fortitude and the will to stand against him. Even if they find their spines at this late hour, the crucial inquiry remains: is it already too late to prevent his schemes from succeeding?
This isn’t a sudden, spontaneous eruption of ideas. There are indications that these plans are being pre-cooked and presented with an alarming lack of transparency. The audacity of potentially fabricating legal arguments and presenting them to handpicked judges, hoping to force a decree that states refuse to follow, is a direct path to declaring election theft and invoking martial law. This particular scenario, which has been articulated, suggests a deliberate playbook: dismantle key institutions, impeach perceived opponents, and then, with no repercussions for past actions—other than being elected president again—move on to the next attempt.
The lack of significant consequences for his previous actions, including accusations of immense financial impropriety, speaks volumes. The silence and lack of outrage from the broader political landscape are deafening. It’s almost as if the country has become desensitized to his transgressions, allowing him to operate with impunity. This isn’t just about a personal ambition; it’s about a fundamental rejection of democratic principles and a clear unwillingness to relinquish power.
The narrative surrounding the upcoming election is deeply intertwined with the idea that the Republican Party, as a whole, is actively planning to support this November coup. It’s not solely Trump’s endeavor; it’s a shared objective. The P2025 plan, for instance, seems to be a roadmap for how to achieve this, indicating that a significant segment of the party doesn’t desire free and fair elections but rather the outcome that benefits them, regardless of the democratic process. This complicity of Congress and the Supreme Court is, therefore, a critical component of the entire scheme.
The underlying strategy appears to be rooted in a belief that the U.S. can be manipulated into accepting these actions, perhaps inspired by authoritarian tactics seen elsewhere. The idea of creating a constitutional crisis by rejecting election results, especially if Congress is not aligned with his goals, is a clear and present danger. The proposed methods of undermining elections, such as mandating voter ID and banning mail-in balloting, are presented as steps to secure Republican victories. While the logic of voter ID is debated, the banning of mail-in voting, which has historically been utilized by certain demographics, raises further questions about the intent behind these proposals.
The chilling realization is that these aren’t entirely hypothetical scenarios. There are discussions about Trump potentially using executive orders or declaring a state of emergency, invoking statutes like the Insurrection Act, to enact extraordinary measures. These measures could include outlawing early voting, banning mail-in balloting, and enforcing strict voter ID requirements, all leading up to a potential postponement of the election itself, citing the failure of these “reasonable” measures. The ease with which such an escalation could occur, especially if there’s no robust opposition, is a terrifying prospect.
While some might point to the complexity of state-level elections, like gubernatorial races, as a potential safeguard, the underlying intent to disrupt the federal process remains. The question of who will actively stop such a subversion, particularly within the Pentagon, is a critical one. The passivity of a significant portion of the electorate, as evidenced in past elections, is a concerning factor. Trump, it seems, is prepared to burn the nation to the ground rather than face any consequences for his actions.
There appears to be no off-ramp with this individual. He will push the boundaries as far as he is permitted. To suggest this is merely speculative is to ignore the extensive planning and the stated intentions that have been evident for years. The idea that the journalist is just now realizing this is, for many, a sign of how long this threat has been looming. The country is in a precarious position, and the realization that this is happening again, with potentially greater success, is a grim one.
It’s a common sentiment that Americans may not have the collective will to hold him accountable, leading to a potential success for his plans. The expected reaction – anger, social media posts, and protests – might not be enough to counter a determined effort to overturn democratic norms. The complicity of the Republican Party, acting as the enablers of this potential coup, is a crucial element. Their role in rejecting state election results if Trump demands it is a direct pathway to undermining the democratic outcome.
While states are ultimately responsible for running elections, Trump’s ability to influence the federal response, including what Congress will do in swearing in elected officials, remains a significant concern. At this point, nothing seems surprising. The political landscape has devolved into something resembling a chilling thriller, where the stakes are the very foundations of the republic. The time for simply observing has passed; the moment for decisive action to prevent a democratic collapse is now.