Covert agencies conducting spying/intelligence gathering putatively in the name of defending the Constitution have been with us for decades. The growth of this branch of govt. post 9/11 has been reported on and is concerning/potentially alarming.
But the "Deep State" nonsense is classic black helicopter stuff.
It is...and it isn't.
There is a huge pool of career government employees, and among them are many agendas aside from those of whichever faction just won the white house/legislature. This serves as an enduring source of continuity, competence, grievance, and bases of power. You need examples? Oh yes you do!
The recent underground efforts by EPA, Park Service, Forest Service, NOAA, NASA, and other agency employees to challenge the incoming administration on climate change.
The efforts within the Border Patrol to support Trump's immigration proposals, both during and after the election.
The factions within the military who endeavor to protect missions or weapons systems that come under budgetary attack: the B1 bomber, to name a particularly ancient example; the Osprey VTOL transport, F-35 fighter, and A-10 ground attack airplanes to name more-recent (but still aerospace-related) examples.
Former Director Comey's testimony is a good example of the standard of independence our executive branch agencies are supposed to strive for. That independence from political control is admirable, not something to be feared for its own sake, but it comes with risks as well.
When the government at any level misbehaves it must be answerable via elections. If top of the executive power structure changes hands but nothing else changes the problem may be structural, which requires legislative or judicial relief.We have mechanisms to bring those fiefdoms to heel but the fiefdoms exist.
This is the political/governmental version of a bogeyman, a specter that cannot be adequately disproven because it is akin to proving a negative.
So we have the specter of this covert group of professional government types who wield power from within the nooks and crannies of the federal government without accountability and disproportionate to their station in the government.
This is the Trump schtick. I am being opposed by sinister forces, largely unknown to the public, because I am seeking to disrupt their monopoly, to expose these proverbial cockroaches by bringing them into the light. I am the people's champion and anyone opposed to me or my agenda most assuredly is part of this conspiracy.
I dont believe in some organized effort either...on the other hand, we do have an aggregate of individuals focused on their own self-interests, and increasingly acting without consideration that the other side has a valid point, let alone worthy of the air they breathe...so when a common enemy pops up (like Trump), the ugliness of it all comes floating to the top.
Are you talking about the government or the electorate?
maybe deep state is the wrong word/label (i rarely listen to political radio)
i think i got the term from bill moyers (heck it could have been richard - can't remember)
i'm talking about the tools via three letter agencies
FRONTLINE goes behind the headlines to reveal the dramatic inside story of the U.S. government’s massive and controversial secret surveillance program–and the lengths they went to trying to keep it hidden from the public. Part one goes inside Washington to piece together the secret political history of “The Program,” which began in the wake of Sept. 11 and continues today — even after the revelations of its existence by Edward Snowden. Part two explores the secret relationship between Silicon Valley and the National Security Agency: How have the government and tech companies worked together to gather and warehouse your data?
I saw part of the Frontline series and will watch the rest of it soon via Roku or online - some of their programs get a little too intense for late at night (or I get too sleepy) so I stream them later. The term "deep state" has become a catch phrase for the current administration and its adherents of late, which is likely why it was being discussed in this thread instead of the CIA/FBI/NRA, etc. threads.
Those are articles are more about the CIA, which has essentially been engaging in such practices since its inception; they're not about the "cabal" of entrenched bureaucrats whom Bannon and Trump would have us believe are conspiring against them. I guess it depends on the user of the term "deep state" and its context. A "shadow government" derived from the intelligence community is something different than is usually being yelled about on right-wing talk radio. There is also a Frontline piece on Steve Bannon.
maybe deep state is the wrong word/label (i rarely listen to political radio)
i think i got the term from bill moyers (heck it could have been richard - can't remember)
i'm talking about the tools via three letter agencies
FRONTLINE goes behind the headlines to reveal the dramatic inside story of the U.S. government’s massive and controversial secret surveillance program–and the lengths they went to trying to keep it hidden from the public. Part one goes inside Washington to piece together the secret political history of “The Program,” which began in the wake of Sept. 11 and continues today — even after the revelations of its existence by Edward Snowden. Part two explores the secret relationship between Silicon Valley and the National Security Agency: How have the government and tech companies worked together to gather and warehouse your data?
Covert agencies conducting spying/intelligence gathering putatively in the name of defending the Constitution have been with us for decades. The growth of this branch of govt. post 9/11 has been reported on and is concerning/potentially alarming.
But the "Deep State" nonsense is classic black helicopter stuff.
Those are articles are more about the CIA, which has essentially been engaging in such practices since its inception; they're not about the "cabal" of entrenched bureaucrats whom Bannon and Trump would have us believe are conspiring against them. I guess it depends on the user of the term "deep state" and its context. A "shadow government" derived from the intelligence community is something different than is usually being yelled about on right-wing talk radio. There is also a Frontline piece on Steve Bannon.
This is the political/governmental version of a bogeyman, a specter that cannot be adequately disproven because it is akin to proving a negative.
So we have the specter of this covert group of professional government types who wield power from within the nooks and crannies of the federal government without accountability and disproportionate to their station in the government.
This is the Trump schtick. I am being opposed by sinister forces, largely unknown to the public, because I am seeking to disrupt their monopoly, to expose these proverbial cockroaches by bringing them into the light. I am the people's champion and anyone opposed to me or my agenda most assuredly is part of this conspiracy.
I dont believe in some organized effort either...on the other hand, we do have an aggregate of individuals focused on their own self-interests, and increasingly acting without consideration that the other side has a valid point, let alone worthy of the air they breathe...so when a common enemy pops up (like Trump), the ugliness of it all comes floating to the top.
I agree about the "aggregate" as you call it, many of whom are entrenched and largely self-interested, and that exists (even more perhaps) in state-level governments. Whether or not there is an organized "shadow government" is another matter, but it suits Trump's narrative. At any rate, much ugliness has been floating around lately.
This is the political/governmental version of a bogeyman, a specter that cannot be adequately disproven because it is akin to proving a negative.
So we have the specter of this covert group of professional government types who wield power from within the nooks and crannies of the federal government without accountability and disproportionate to their station in the government.
This is the Trump schtick. I am being opposed by sinister forces, largely unknown to the public, because I am seeking to disrupt their monopoly, to expose these proverbial cockroaches by bringing them into the light. I am the people's champion and anyone opposed to me or my agenda most assuredly is part of this conspiracy.
I dont believe in some organized effort either...on the other hand, we do have an aggregate of individuals focused on their own self-interests, and increasingly acting without consideration that the other side has a valid point, let alone worthy of the air they breathe...so when a common enemy pops up (like Trump), the ugliness of it all comes floating to the top.
Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary Gender:
Posted:
Jun 8, 2017 - 9:53am
Proclivities wrote:
steeler wrote:
I have to respond to this.
This is the political/governmental version of a bogeyman, a specter that cannot be adequately disproven because it is akin to proving a negative.
So we have the specter of this covert group of professional government types who wield power from within the nooks and crannies of the federal government without accountability and disproportionate to their station in the government.
This is the Trump schtick. I am being opposed by sinister forces, largely unknown to the public, because I am seeking to disrupt their monopoly, to expose these proverbial cockroaches by bringing them into the light. I am the people's champion and anyone opposed to me or my agenda most assuredly is part of this conspiracy.
...as scripted by Steve Bannon (with assistance from Alex Jones).
And, the single "guiding principle" that I have observed Trump both say and follow is "never apologize".
This is the political/governmental version of a bogeyman, a specter that cannot be adequately disproven because it is akin to proving a negative.
So we have the specter of this covert group of professional government types who wield power from within the nooks and crannies of the federal government without accountability and disproportionate to their station in the government.
This is the Trump schtick. I am being opposed by sinister forces, largely unknown to the public, because I am seeking to disrupt their monopoly, to expose these proverbial cockroaches by bringing them into the light. I am the people's champion and anyone opposed to me or my agenda most assuredly is part of this conspiracy.
...as scripted by Steve Bannon (with assistance from Alex Jones).
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 8, 2017 - 9:39am
kurtster wrote:
This leads back to the Deep State, of which I need no additional convincing that it exists and is a threat to all Americans.
But the DS is the friend and ally of those who wish to remove Trump from office and its sinister side is ignored in an end justifies the means approach.
2¢ ...
I have to respond to this.
This is the political/governmental version of a bogeyman, a specter that cannot be adequately disproven because it is akin to proving a negative.
So we have the specter of this covert group of professional government types who wield power from within the nooks and crannies of the federal government without accountability and disproportionate to their station in the government.
This is the Trump schtick. I am being opposed by sinister forces, largely unknown to the public, because I am seeking to disrupt their monopoly, to expose these proverbial cockroaches by bringing them into the light. I am the people's champion and anyone opposed to me or my agenda most assuredly is part of this conspiracy.
my big concern isn't whether trump is roped in on a technicality or nutty rule
it's the tools that are available to him or any other politician and how they'll be used
if he survives and i think that's likely and he gets "loyal" people in place, what happens?
ego, revenge, power and secrecy
what could wrong?
i just don't trust these folks to act responsibly
This leads back to the Deep State, of which I need no additional convincing that it exists and is a threat to all Americans.
But the DS is the friend and ally of those who wish to remove Trump from office and its sinister side is ignored in an end justifies the means approach.
Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary Gender:
Posted:
Jun 8, 2017 - 7:34am
miamizsun wrote:
my big concern isn't whether trump is roped in on a technicality or nutty rule Happens all the time that a criminal will be charged with a lesser crime...think back to Al Capone.
it's the tools that are available to him or any other politician and how they'll be used In this case, what is the pronoun "It's" ?
if he survives and i think that's likely and he gets "loyal" people in place, what happens? He brought on loyal people, or so he thought. He can't successfully replace them now, much less later.
ego, revenge, power and secrecy Status quo in politics, since...forever.
what could wrong? The inference of "everything" is why this is such a national stressor.
i just don't trust these folks to act responsibly I agree. The role/rule of money, behind the scenes, will govern the outcome, imo.
Comey wasn't being a very good cop IMO. He should have engaged Trump to remove the ambiguity. The response to, "Do you like your job?" should have been, "Yes, what do I need to do to keep it?"
Surely he knows how to question people, gather evidence, and build a case. I can only think he didn't want to go there, even though he obviously didn't trust Trump.
my big concern isn't whether trump is roped in on a technicality or nutty rule
it's the tools that are available to him or any other politician and how they'll be used
if he survives and i think that's likely and he gets "loyal" people in place, what happens?
after some light reading i'm guessing and agreeing with a few who have parsed the comey statement that after the smoke clears the overall verdict here will be "stupid but not criminal"
we'll see
Comey wasn't being a very good cop IMO. He should have engaged Trump to remove the ambiguity. The response to, "Do you like your job?" should have been, "Yes, what do I need to do to keep it?"
Surely he knows how to question people, gather evidence, and build a case. I can only think he didn't want to go there, even though he obviously didn't trust Trump.
after some light reading i'm guessing and agreeing with a few who have parsed the comey statement that after the smoke clears the overall verdict here will be "stupid but not criminal"
we'll see
I think most of what I've read says that the issue with obstruction is that you have to establish intent. Seems like the facts and circumstances that are slowly being revealed are making it easier to come to such a legal conclusion.
