Moderator: coldharvest
Kurt wrote:All that for a single count of lying to a Federal Agent.
Person Who Was There and Heard the Evidence wrote:"I think we could have spent our time more wisely."
"It didn't pan out in the government's favor and that's on them,"
Michael wrote:"Deep state" sounds so ominous and conspiratorial, like the Illuminati. In reality, it's just the "WeBe" protecting their turf. But WeBe (as in "We be here before you were elected and we be here after you're gone") just doesn't sound as sexy as Deep State.
Michael wrote:Kurt said "I found the closest to a "Deep State" are two groups...."
I'd add a third, and probably the most insidious, group...career mid-level political appointees. They have a great deal of authority, but are insulated from above and below. Of course, when they do get busted and tossed under the bus, they seem to find themselves drawn to NGOs, lobbying, and consulting.
Kurt wrote:Michael wrote:"Deep state" sounds so ominous and conspiratorial, like the Illuminati. In reality, it's just the "WeBe" protecting their turf. But WeBe (as in "We be here before you were elected and we be here after you're gone") just doesn't sound as sexy as Deep State.
I found the closest to a "Deep State" are two groups.
1. Regular beaurocrats. Quite often the kind who operate under rules and regulations (like county Housing deed clerks) that are employed to follow and enforce rules and regulations. These include various employees of the three branches of government too.
2. NGO / Charities / Think Tanks. Groups employed and funded to advocate for a special interest group or groups but often influence or even write laws for the benefit of these groups and often against the public interest. The NRA and various Health Insurance Lobbying groups, but there are of course many others.
The closest I have come to "Deep State" as defined by the conspiracy people is State Redistricting councils / Agencies. Having worked for one here in New York I can they exist only to keep incumbents in office. When one side gains control then they exist to keep their majority. In New York the Democrats gerrymandered themselves extra seats and in various Republican states they have done the same.
Usually when people bitch about The Deep State they talk about the Charities / NGO etc. but end up firing the beaurocrats...either because they are an easy target or their adherence to rules and regulations ends up thwarting a politicians career or their friend's business interests. If they can be corrupted to act in their own interests then they are no longer "The Deep State" (even though by definition they become more like the Deep State)
Tarkan wrote:
For example, take James Comey. As Director of the FBI, he was nominally subordinate to the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. As was McCabe and the anti-Trump cabal. In actuality, they were functionally a rogue cabal operating outside of any actual governmental or legal control. Not accountable to the courts, not accountable to the Legislative Branch, and not accountable to the Executive Branch.
Tarkan wrote:For example, take James Comey. As Director of the FBI, he was nominally subordinate to the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. As was McCabe and the anti-Trump cabal. In actuality, they were functionally a rogue cabal operating outside of any actual governmental or legal control. Not accountable to the courts, not accountable to the Legislative Branch, and not accountable to the Executive Branch. Because Comey briefed the (Obama holdover) DNI, you could maybe make a weak claim that there was at least a little bit of cross (Executive Branch) oversight, but given that the cabal members (re: Sussman) lied to the FISA court and used fabricated Hillary campaign disinfo to get the whole ball rolling, and literally no one was punished legally (see Sussman's treatment vs. Michael Flynn's treatment, for example), it's hard to make that claim with any credibility.
ROB wrote:Tarkan wrote:For example, take James Comey. As Director of the FBI, he was nominally subordinate to the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. As was McCabe and the anti-Trump cabal. In actuality, they were functionally a rogue cabal operating outside of any actual governmental or legal control. Not accountable to the courts, not accountable to the Legislative Branch, and not accountable to the Executive Branch. Because Comey briefed the (Obama holdover) DNI, you could maybe make a weak claim that there was at least a little bit of cross (Executive Branch) oversight, but given that the cabal members (re: Sussman) lied to the FISA court and used fabricated Hillary campaign disinfo to get the whole ball rolling, and literally no one was punished legally (see Sussman's treatment vs. Michael Flynn's treatment, for example), it's hard to make that claim with any credibility.
I know it's hard for toadies like you, but imagine that somebody is not "loyal" to Trump or Obama, but to the republic...
A tough thought experiment, I know.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 135 guests