And it’s not—or at least it ought not to be—a partisan issue.
Comments
Beware the intelligence community… — 30 Comments
Remember?
Schumer warns Trump: Intel officials ‘have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you’
Three Words: John Roberts Obamacare.
The brutal truth is that virtually *everyone* (unless unnaturally groomed from birth for public life with a rigorously curated history of word and deed – hello Chelsea) is guilty of various sins, embarrassments, peculations, and sexual peccadilloes. The Deep State has *all of it*. And when it doesn’t have it, it can manufacture it and plonk it right there on your laptop waiting to be found.
And for the last decade we’ve all been carrying around devices which report virtually everything we do and say back back to some nice big data warehouses where it can sit and be data mined and pattern matched. Plenty of ways that random citizens can be ‘judged and nudged’ without any human intervention at all. Get elected to high office or a slot on the Supreme Court and you can bet your socks that said data then comes in for human eyes on drill down.
Call this conspiracy theory scare mongering? Time to wake up and think about the wealth and power up for grabs. Let alone whomever (obviously a bunch of people and entities) stays in control of access to this data. There an iron logic to it as inexorable as the calculations of the July/August 1914 general mobilisations. Given that the technology exists, it cannot NOT be used. Then it’s only a matter of Who Whom.
As for What is to be Done… well that’s a tough one and above my pay grade. I will note however that shamelessness and not giving a damn about how one is perceived by the rest of the world per one Donald Trump seems to be driving a lot of very well-connected government types a bit crazy. Might be onto something there.
As profoundly disturbing as Atkinson’s representative litany of Constitutional violations are, IMO far more chilling is her final comment;
“Rather than cooperate or expose the bad actors, today’s Department of Justice is opposing my lawsuit over those intrusions in Virginia federal court.
WTF AG Sessions?
Bueller? Bueller?
Either the Deep State is deep, powerful, and secretive…in which case, how can so many people know its secrets well enough for random commenters to offer sweeping, declarative opinions on it?
…or else it’s not very deep or secretive, since everyone seems convinced that they know enough about the Deep State to have opinions about it, in which case, how powerful can it really be?
It’s either one or the other, folks. If there’s a Deep State powerful enough to pull the strings behind the curtains, then, guess what, you’re not behind the curtains and you have no idea what you’re talking about. Or else you do know all about the Deep State, in which case you’re really just talking about a banal, public, boring function of government.
But conspiracy theories are attractive because they’re flattering. They tell you that there’s a powerful secret that virtually no one knows about, but YOU are so clever that you see through all the deception.
Shepard:
Good points, but Nobody Expects The Spanish aargh!
The temptation to use such data is irresistible for anyone seeking power. Data collection seemed such a great way to combat terrorism. But it has opened a Pandora’s box – at least for privacy and freedom. How do we stuff that evil back in the box?
Shepard,
One does not have to see a rotting fish to smell it. By their actions and the fruits of those actions do we know enough about them to know their nature.
The FBI “investigation” of Hillary Clinton emails was a sham of such breathtaking ‘incompetence’ as to destroy all credulity as to its veracity.
Brennan and Clapper are proven liars in testimony before Congress.
Comey should be in prison. As should Holder.
McCabe’s conflict of interests and recent revelations reveal him to have acted in an entirely partisan manner. His recent testimony before Congress was entirely evasive.
The rot’s smell is so foul as to leave no doubt of its existence. You don’t need to know the exact particulars of a feces laden stable to know that it requires washing out.
We don’t need to know what leverage the Deep State possesses, to recognize Congressional inaction in the face of blatant deep state malfeasance and to realize that partisan ideology and fear of exposure are the two most likely reasons for that inaction.
To engage in blatant criminality without consequence is by any measure, real power.
JJ,
I’m worried that it’s too late. Not just governments but also private companies–everyone keeps getting better and better at collecting data on the public and manipulating its behavior. Look at Apple with its slowing down old phones to “preserve battery life” but also conveniently influencing customers to shell out another grand on a phone before they need to feplace the one they’ve got. It’s pervasive. I’m worried that by the time thibgs have gotten so bad that we need to water the tree of liberty, things will have gotten so subtly bad that no one will do it…or even notice that they need to.
om:
🙂
Shepherd:
Conspiracy Theories are the refuge of the weak-minded.
However, that does not mean that *emergent behaviour* driven by technological and social developments + innate human nature (corruptible, will to power, fear of others grabbing the Ring) doesn’t mandate can *appear* very much as if there is in fact a giant Conspiracy with a Capital C.
And if descriptions of what I believe the Deep State is up to sound a bit apocalyptic or hand-waving, that’s because nobody (not even the biggest baddiest Evil Geniuses in the 3-Letter Agencies) can see all of it. Parts of the Deep State can be Zigging with one objective in mind whilst another part Zags toward something entirely different. Either way, if Senator X or Justice Y fapped off in front of a webcam in 2006, they’re both now Somebody’s Bitches. Or Several Competing Bodies’ Bitches. As i said, Emergent Behaviour. Imagine a school of fish or a flock of birds.
And just because the whole thing seems unpleasant and rather terrifying (which it is) and just because I cannot Prove it with a P, instead of knee-jerking away from it, sit down, have a coffee and meditate on the old Australian Koan:
Q: Why does a dog lick its balls?
A: Because it CAN.
CAN has a terrible logic all of its own. Once new capabilities become widespread, they WILL be used.
That simple. No smoke and mirrors and Elders of Zion or Illuminati or Skull & Bones. Just CAN. And money and power and fear and paranoia and cupidity and all the other good old stuff that the polite and genteel amongst us hope never to have to confront.
Occam’s Razor, try it sometime.
J.J. Says:
The temptation to use such data is irresistible for anyone seeking power. Data collection seemed such a great way to combat terrorism. But it has opened a Pandora’s box — at least for privacy and freedom. How do we stuff that evil back in the box?
To my knowledge, intelligence hasn’t stopped many (if any) attacks. In fact, we know of a few failures even though authorities had the intel but wouldn’t use it because of PC.
If there’s almost no benefit while the dangers of abuse have become real (and manifest), then it doesn’t seem like a difficult choice.
Repeal the Patriot Act, and return the IC to the state it was prior to 9/11, but with some safeguards against “stovepiping.” DESTROY all data collection centers.
And speaking of conspiracies, I keep wondering whether AG Sessions is being blackmailed. I can think of no other reasonable explanation for his passivity, seeming weakness and continuing laissez-faire attitude about the DOJ and FBI shenanigans.
Unless, or course, he knows for certain that the soon-to-be-released IG Horowitz investigation report will thoroughly clean out our Augean stables all by itself? [Too much to hope for]
Until he was appointed AG he was a dependably conservative (and relatively active and outspoken) Senator. What the hell is happening with him?
Or maybe–just hear me out, I know this sounfmds crazy but hear me out–Sessions maybe isn’t taking the dramatic actions you’d expext him to take in the face of an evil conspiracy because there is no conspiracy?
I know I know, crazy. Obviously, there’s a huge evil conspiracy for which you have zero evidence (like Zigzag admitted in a comment that bot criticized conspiracy theories and then openly embraced a conspiracy theory). And then you’d expect to see some things if that conspiracy really did exist, like Sessions taking action. And when those things don’t materialize, you don’t reject the theory. Oh no, you just invent an all new conspiract theory about Sessions being blackmailed, out of whole cloth. Double down on the nonsense.
I prefer the obvious answer: the government is full of lazy, incompetent bureaucrats.
It doesn’t take a conspiracy for members of the deep state to operate in their own interests and against the current administration. When they all have the same interests there’s no need for them to coordinate their actions. Remember they voted and contributed to the Democrats by over a 10 to 1 margin. They live in such a liberal bubble that they don’t ever even hear the other side of the story.
Listen, I’ve known a lot of public servants, liberal and conservative and libertarian and every shade. And every single one I’ve known has known how to separate their private beliefs from their public service. I’ve known people who loathe the president–both this one and the last one–who managed to be grown ups and do their jobs professionally and objectively. I know liberals who think Trump is a corrupt, treasonous sociopath and conservatives who think Obama was a naive, vain weakling and still went to work every day providing apolitical service to their country because that’s what they signed up for. The government has a lot of problems but in my years in the service I mostly saw patriots doing their best in the face of cumbersome bureaucracy. I didn’t see a Deep State. I’m not sure when they’d find the time to run a conspiracy in between doing their jobs, filling out endless paperwork, and doing their mandatory CBT.
But you folks who have no evidence and have probably never seen the government at work or known anyone in government but you somehow know about a Deep State so powerful that the president himself is powerless in the face of it but so weak that YOU know all about it. Sure.
Shepherd:
Keep trolling and assuming what “you folks” know and don’t know, and keep on asserting your superiority because YOU have known some public servants who are the good guys.
Do you even begin to understand what you sound like?
Or should I say what “you folks” sound like? 🙂
By the way, one of the marks of a troll is the phrase “you folks.”
Hey remember when I said you were obsessed with whether I was a troll? Probably because 100 percent of your interactions have been about whether I’m a troll and zero about the substance of my comments.
Look, I get, conservatives are supposed to support their party over country and never question their elected officials as long as they have an R next to their name–just kidding! But these days, a person can assert without any proof at all that Jeff Sessions is being blackmailed by an imaginary Deep State and no one bats an eye, but I committed the doubleplus ungood thoughtcrime of questioning our Dear Leader and I’m a troll.
Shoot, you caught me red handed! All I did was disagree with the orthodoxy. But if conservatives are so unwilling to examine our own mistakes that we’ll concoct a fantast Deep State conspiracy instead of taking a hard look at how we got ourselves into this mess, then the drubbing we’ll take in 2018 will be historic. And that’s what I want desperately to avoid but I’m afraid we deserve it. Check out 538–yeah, liberal pollsters but also the only ones who honestly reported the possibility of a DJT win. Based on the math, R’s could lose over 100 seats in the House. But sure, I’m a troll and you can look for Jeff Session’ blackmailer the way OJ looked for the real killer.
Anyway, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to ALL YOU FOLKS 🙂
Thanks Neo, I didn’t realize what a troll I was dealing with. I won’t waste anymore time with him.
Actually his last post would have clued me in anyway but it’s nice to hear it from you.
Shepherd:
As I said before, I’m not at all obsessed with whether you’re a troll or not. I knew from the start that you were; it’s not a question.
But perhaps you don’t understand exactly what a troll is, or at least why I don’t engage with them ordinarily on the merits. There are basically two reasons.
The first is that other people here are more than capable of engaging with, answering, responding to, agreeing with or disagreeing with, any of the substantive issues you discuss and the points that you raise. There’s no need for me to do that, and it’s also ordinarily a waste of time to do it—which brings us to reason number two.
Reason number two—that it’s ordinarily a waste of time to engage with a troll on the merits—is something I’ve observed over the thirteen years I’ve been blogging. Thirteen years is a long long time to do this nearly every day. I’ve seen trolls come and I’ve seen them go, lots and lots and lots of them, and I learned many a long year ago that their favorite activity is to play various games. The games can be as simple as moving the goalposts, setting up strawmen, mindless generalities such as “you folks” this and “you folks” that, ignoring or “misunderstanding” points or questions raised by me or other commenters, stating “facts” that are untrue, truncated quotes, snarky tone, etc. etc.—the whole panoply of tools in the kitbag of people who come to a blog to insult but mostly to annoy and waste time.
However, sometimes (rarely, but sometimes) I do engage in substantive discussions with a troll, but only on topics that especially interest me for some reason.
Is there a way I could have possibly made my point withoit yoi accusing me of being a troll? Because it seems like you pegged me as one from the first word, and all I did was express my disagreement with the orthodoxy. I’ve never moved goalposts, I’ve never stated anything untrue, I’ve never truncated quotea, and where I come from “you folks” is a friendly way of adressing, you know, a bunch of folks you’re talking to. Maybe in New England it’s only something trolls say but not around here. So it sure seems like you mostly just hate people disagreeing with you and speaking their minds differently.
Shepherd:
Plenty of ways to have made all your points minus the snark, and the condescending and superior attitude. There are plenty of arguments here on plenty of threads with plenty of people who are respectful in tone.
“You folks” followed by an insult is not a friendly way of talking anywhere, even in the South, where insults are often veiled in sweetness (such as “bless your heart,” for example). Your words: “you folks who have no evidence and have probably never seen the government at work or known anyone in government…” is very much as example of troll-like behavior. You actually have zero idea whether people here have seen the “government at work” or have known anyone in government. I certainly have seen and known both, and I have little doubt that plenty of people who read here and comment here have, as well.
You seem like an intelligent person with good reading comprehension, and yet you seemed to not understand that I was speaking about trolls in general when I made that list of things like truncated quotes and strawmen, and was giving examples of the sorts of things trolls often do in order to waste time, things that lead me to not engage with them. I was speaking about an experience of over a decade, not specifically of you. It was very obvious from what I said that I was speaking of trolls in general and giving a laundry list of possibilities, and that I was certainly not saying you were doing all those things.
Also, you keep coming across as being from a particular part of Canada where some previous trolls here have originated, and I’m not sure what that’s about, although you say you’re from Virginia.
Since you have completely derailed the conversation, I’d be apt toncall YOU a troll if this weren’t your own web page. But by”you folks” I only meant Zigzag and Carl and Geoffrey, to a degree, the people making pretty crazy claims with zero evidence. Saying they lack experience with government is my guess, not an insult, and since I’m not going to show you my references I only mention mynbackground to explain my position, not as proof of anything. Geez.
Carl even made up an entirely new conspiracy theory to explain the lack of evidence for another conspiracy. If that passes without comment from you, but you spend this much time hassling me, then I can’t help but think you’re singling me out for disagreeing and not anything I have actually done.
I don’t know what the deal is with the Canada thing and I don’t know anything about this Canadian troll. Can you imagine how frustrating it is to be a conservative worried about the future of his cointry and party and have to spend time explaining that you’re not a Canadian?
Shepherd:
It may be frustrating to you to be told your identifiers say that you’re Canadian. However, it’s a fact that they do. I’m sure it’s a frustrating fact if you aren’t actually Canadian, but the point is that it’s part of the reason you’re coming across as a troll. But only part.
The other reason is things like the following—which I’ll just take from your most recent comment here. Your remarks are in quotes, addressing me.
“Since you have completely derailed the conversation…”
I have derailed nothing. One of the main things we were talking about was your style of commenting here, and whether you could or should be defined as a troll. Everyone (including you) has been free to continue to talk about the article written by Attkisson, which is the subject of this post.
“I’d be apt to call YOU a troll if this weren’t your own web page.” Certainly a hostile remark.
“But by ‘you folks’ I only meant Zigzag and Carl and Geoffrey, to a degree, the people making pretty crazy claims with zero evidence. Saying they lack experience with government is my guess, not an insult…” But “you folks” is a general response rather than a specific one. If you meant a few specific people you should have said so. No one reads your mind; the impression people get of you here is based on what you write here. If you are guessing at something, you need to say that, as well. Speaking of “no evidence,” you had absolutely no evidence for your “guess”—and yes, it is insulting to assume something like that without any evidence for it. It is condescending and offputting, as well as being based on nothing.
I definitely do not reply to most comments or most commenters here. Lack of response on my part does not signal assent.
In your case, as I already said, there are plenty of ways for you to have made all your points minus the snark and the condescending and superior attitude. Had you done that, the only attention you would have drawn is to the content of what you were saying, just as is the case with plenty of other commenters here who don’t agree with what I’m saying or what other commenters are saying. It is not troll-like to disagree, although you keep accusing me of your disagreement being the real reason I call you a troll (in fact, earlier you wrote that that I “just hate people disagreeing with you and speaking their minds differently”). However, there have been quite a few commenters on this blog for ten years or so who disagree with me at almost every turn, which makes your accusation almost humorous.
Shepherd-
For what it’s worth I was once a government employee, having worked at the VA for a number of years, not to mention my time in the military. Also my father was a lifelong government employee having worked for HUD. Like you I saw many good people “doing their best in the face of cumbersome bureaucracy”. It should be obvious though, that these are not the people being referred to when we talk about the Deep State.
To claim that “us folks” have no evidence of higher level government employees working to undermine a duly elected President and his party is nothing short of ridiculous. Did you even read the Sharyl Attkisson article the post was based on? Have you followed the Lois Lerner and the IRS scandal, at the Justice Department, the EPA, and all the others? The evidence is overwhelming.
The Deep State wouldn’t be deep if it was just the FBI, NSA, and other Congress critter reviewed and funded and oversighted bureaucratic agencies.
The Deep State is the layer that is not in Congressional control, like the Federal Reserve, or black funded units operating via domestic and foreign intel networks.
It’s why people can notice corruption in various US governments, but they can’t link the conspiracies together. That’s because the conspiracy isn’t centered around the politicians or their bureaucrats in DC, but commanded by deeper controllers below that layer.
Again Americans refuse to believe in conspiracy theories… meanwhile they absolutely believe in conspiracy facts such as do not trust intel networks like the CIA. Except… well that’s exactly what everyone else says about the CIA, foreign born or anti American or conspiracy nut.
The modern world is to the point where people think they have an idea of what the truth is. Somebody does, but few know who they are.
Shepherd Says:
December 26th, 2017 at 10:35 pm
Either the Deep State is deep, powerful, and secretive…in which case, how can so many people know its secrets well enough for random commenters to offer sweeping, declarative opinions on it?
…or else it’s not very deep or secretive, since everyone seems convinced that they know enough about the Deep State to have opinions about it, in which case, how powerful can it really be?
Look up Operation Paperclip. There’s a thousand layers to this onion, not so “simplistic” a network as politicians->bureaucrats. Most humans are too lazy to do their own research: hence the problem with humanity.
That’s only 2 layers, how the heck is that DEEP?
1000 layers is deep. 5-10 layers is pretty good too.
Compartmentalization. Got to learn the lingo before analyzing open source on CIA and black funded unit operations. Also, coincidentally, a conspiracy theory topic: compartmentalization removes the need for hundreds of thousands of people to keep the same secret.
Occam’s razor was originally the simplest route to the solution is the most efficient and therefore usually the best. That means instead of walking 6 miles in a square, you can walk 2 mile to the destination. However, in warfare, direct isn’t necessarily the best. Goes double for conspiracy facts and intel networks, whether funded by Congress or funded by sources unknown to the President’s cabinet, and the other 2 branches.
If the solution cannot be arrived using the direct route, then the indirect route would be the best. If the direct route takes longer or more resources than the indirect route, then the indirect route is the simplest. Most people have perverted and corrupted the meaning of Occam’s Razor to mean equivalent to Alexander cutting the Gordian Knot. Problems do not always have a direct solution where you can cut through it using your own logical shortcuts, although people who think their IQ is high or have an overly developed ego and sense of self importance, tend to believe they can cut through any Gordian Knot: aka Occam’s Razor applies to everyone and everything.
Not even the best minds in America have resolved social security. That is not because their egos are insufficiently Supreme, to the narcissist, but because the problem is bigger than Americans realized. Occam’s Razor is not to “defund social security”, but rather to find the simplest solution to it that is feasible. Cutting through the Gordian Knot is also not about funding, it’s about killing the proponents of SS. Politics can work too, but only if the Deep State allows it.
The simplest solution in the world, that does not work and even has never worked, is only for idiots: thus Marxism.
But conspiracy theories are attractive because they’re flattering. They tell you that there’s a powerful secret that virtually no one knows about, but YOU are so clever that you see through all the deception.
Heh, that doesn’t work for proponents of Flat Earth model theories. The reason is rather simple, via Occam’s Razor. As Hussein said twice or more, we don’t have time (to be idiots) for the Flat Earth Society.
So why would someone join the modern FE model trending movement of conspiracy fact/theory, if it makes 99% of the people around them think they are dumb? By the logic of one human that is not even in the top 3%, you’d have to be a super American idiot to join a movement considered the top of idiocy, to make yourself feel and look smart.
Conspiracies and sub cultures are not quite as cookie cutter as Occam’s Razor corrupters would prefer.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
December 26th, 2017 at 11:38 pm
Shepard,
One does not have to see a rotting fish to smell it. By their actions and the fruits of those actions do we know enough about them to know their nature.
All one had to do in 2009 was to assume the Left was evil, Demoncrats were run by Demons for Demons, and that Hussein was a Leftist, to conclude that when DC was firing so many generals from the US military: the US military would be next on the Gramsci march.
It doesn’t take much brain power to figure that one out; it is definitely not equivalent to calculating Pi in your head without paper or equations. Nor is it NASA “rocket science”. All it took was one paragraph. Strangely though, humans don’t see things they don’t want to see. Or as RUmsfeld said, there are unknown unknowns. Although this one was a known unknown, the known Hussein that was unknown. In other words, having a good capture of the VIP or HVT for extraction/assassination, requires understanding their human profile, rather than being too optimistic.
The same applies for when GB is looking at the Deep State. Although I’ve made mention before that what most Americans think of as the Deep State is merely the surface State: the Alt Right coined the term Deep State and it was originally used to mean the Federal Reserve, banks, and for more one encroaches upon conspiracy theory territory. Although that “term” is now a days not quite what it used to be, given that the mainstream Demoncrats and Republican E also believe in Conspiracies: they just think those are FACTS.
People can make the right conclusions using a profiling method, without knowing any of the details: although figuring out details via open source data is recommended as it removes false positives and verifies true positives.
Conspiracy charges are charges that a person has entered into an agreement with another person to commit a crime or an illegal act. A successful conviction for a conspiracy charge requires that an act was taken to begin carrying out the agreemetn. Before a defendant makes any final decisions about how to proceed with a conspiracy allegation, they should understand the nature of the charges, any possible defenses, and the penalties associated with the charge.
Elements of Conspiracy Charges
Many people assume that a conspiracy charge requires a large number of people or a substantial amount of criminal activity. In actuality, a conspiracy charge actually requires a great deal less. Generally, to support conspiracy charges, the prosecution must prove that (1) a person entered an agreement, (2) with at least one other person, and (3) that at least one person to the agreement performed an act to further the agreement.
A conspiracy charge really punishes people for doing just a little more than entering into an agreement to commit a crime with another person. The conspiracy is complete once one person does something to start working on completing the agreement. The level of this “one thing” will vary by state, but many do not require a high level of activity. In some states, for example, the act taken in furtherance of the agreement doesn’t even have to constitute a substantial step in the commission of the actual offense. For example, if a person agrees to help another person sell drugs and then gives that person information about or directions to where to sell or purchase certain controlled substances, then the conspiracy was complete once the first person gave directions–which constituted an act to further the agreement. The action taken does not have to be a criminal act in and of itself.
The government, is of course superior. And the Leftists, zombies, and demons living on this Earth, are much superior than you humans here. Which is why they act like the way they do: you can’t do anything about it or about them.
Ok, so now you’re seeing hostility when all I’ve ever expressed is exasperation. What’s left to say? You made up your mind from the start and here we are.
Chris,
Without a doubt there’s corruption. Despite what the Left would have us believe, public servants are just people and are not inherently good or selfless. But I object to the nonsensical notion that there’s some conspiracy so deeply rooted that it poses a threat to the pres but so in the open that we can talk about it as if we know what we’re talking about.
The original post was about the IC, but only a small part of the FBI is part of the IC, and the article conflates misbehavior in the DOJ with misbehavior in the IC. They’re not the same thing, but we’re supposed to trust that someone who doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the distinction knows about a secret conspiracy? It’s one thing to identify problems in the DOJ, IC, FBI, IRS. But it’s another to conclude that it’s all connected based on zero evidence. And when you’re presented with contrary evidence, you can conclude there’s no conspiracy, our you can double down and concoct a new conspiracy to explain the lack of evidence for the first conspiracy.
Unless you want to believe that a few bad incidents with no obvious connections to each other automatically connect through some sort of systemic plot to do evil, in which case, when did you join Black Lives Matter?
The simplest explanation to all the DOJ efforts against the pres is, of course, that DJT–a serial liar and philanderer and self-confessed sexual assaulter who built his businesses on fraud–either did something corrupt or at least gave a reasonable appearance of corruption that they’re under an actual, reasonable investigation, and people are conflating an actual reasonable investigation with something at the IRS into a silly conspiracy.
They know it to be true, some of them. The rest of humanity will figure it out in due time: US dollar bill Novus ordo seclorum.
People figured out that the Left was doing something to hijack the US military… years afterwards of the initial analysis but still better late than never.
If American suffering and Leftist joy was the theme of 2008-2016, then from 2016-2024 the theme will be Conspiracies and Deep State.
Standard Deviation in statistics. 68%. 3% top. Specific outliers like me.
The Normals belong in the 68%. The leaders are above them. The Ruling Class above the sub leaders. The Deep State above DC and The Ruling Class. Then there’s the outlier or the ultimate, above even the Deep State.
How to counter the Deep State? Try charging them with conspiracy charges… assuming the FBi doesn’t neutralize you or the IRS or SWAT teams or Waco 1 ATF or Waco 2 FBI death squad kill teams.
So only Death works against humans. If humans are in the Deep State, make them die. Alternatively, there is Truth and a Higher Power than Death. One can easily guess what that is. The highest power over mortals IS DEATH. So how can one overcome death itself…. one would have to be an immortal to do so, not a mortal human flawed sheep degenerate masses.
But I object to the nonsensical notion that there’s some conspiracy so deeply rooted that it poses a threat to the pres but so in the open that we can talk about it as if we know what we’re talking about.
Hahaha. The US President.. supposedly the most powerful leader in the world.
One shot + a few more, and JFK went away. That’s why they call it the JFK Assassination Conspiracy.
Lincoln didn’t have an SS. Reagan did.
The sure fire way to kill a US President is to hijack the SS, the Praetorian Guard or the Royal Guards. Don’t need assassins that are trick shots when the person’s own bodyguards are in on it.
Oh btw, what did Michelle O and Hussein do with the SS again? Something… can’t remember: blackmail and blacks in it. Black Panthers… hey, aren’t those boy scouts or something that we can trust with Trum’s life. That’s good right.
Trum is a tool and a semi puppet. His only use in DC is if he stays alive, which I cannot guarantee.
So people thinking the Deep State is all about controlling the US President: pretty laughable at what level their capability and intel analysis is at.
To claim that “us folks” have no evidence of higher level government employees working to undermine a duly elected President and his party is nothing short of ridiculous.
See how they are taunting you Chris?
You would have had that evidence, had the government not deleted it. NSA probably kept it though for their own use. CIA/FBI have their own copies.
You have no evidence (because we made sure to delete it). They so enjoy taunting you. Sure, some of them are just cannonfodder, they are know nothings. So what, they still enjoy it at your expense.
That’s just how Leftists are. Zombies would be better as tools.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Remember?
Schumer warns Trump: Intel officials ‘have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you’
Three Words: John Roberts Obamacare.
The brutal truth is that virtually *everyone* (unless unnaturally groomed from birth for public life with a rigorously curated history of word and deed – hello Chelsea) is guilty of various sins, embarrassments, peculations, and sexual peccadilloes. The Deep State has *all of it*. And when it doesn’t have it, it can manufacture it and plonk it right there on your laptop waiting to be found.
And for the last decade we’ve all been carrying around devices which report virtually everything we do and say back back to some nice big data warehouses where it can sit and be data mined and pattern matched. Plenty of ways that random citizens can be ‘judged and nudged’ without any human intervention at all. Get elected to high office or a slot on the Supreme Court and you can bet your socks that said data then comes in for human eyes on drill down.
Call this conspiracy theory scare mongering? Time to wake up and think about the wealth and power up for grabs. Let alone whomever (obviously a bunch of people and entities) stays in control of access to this data. There an iron logic to it as inexorable as the calculations of the July/August 1914 general mobilisations. Given that the technology exists, it cannot NOT be used. Then it’s only a matter of Who Whom.
As for What is to be Done… well that’s a tough one and above my pay grade. I will note however that shamelessness and not giving a damn about how one is perceived by the rest of the world per one Donald Trump seems to be driving a lot of very well-connected government types a bit crazy. Might be onto something there.
As profoundly disturbing as Atkinson’s representative litany of Constitutional violations are, IMO far more chilling is her final comment;
WTF AG Sessions?
Bueller? Bueller?
Either the Deep State is deep, powerful, and secretive…in which case, how can so many people know its secrets well enough for random commenters to offer sweeping, declarative opinions on it?
…or else it’s not very deep or secretive, since everyone seems convinced that they know enough about the Deep State to have opinions about it, in which case, how powerful can it really be?
It’s either one or the other, folks. If there’s a Deep State powerful enough to pull the strings behind the curtains, then, guess what, you’re not behind the curtains and you have no idea what you’re talking about. Or else you do know all about the Deep State, in which case you’re really just talking about a banal, public, boring function of government.
But conspiracy theories are attractive because they’re flattering. They tell you that there’s a powerful secret that virtually no one knows about, but YOU are so clever that you see through all the deception.
Shepard:
Good points, but Nobody Expects The Spanish aargh!
The temptation to use such data is irresistible for anyone seeking power. Data collection seemed such a great way to combat terrorism. But it has opened a Pandora’s box – at least for privacy and freedom. How do we stuff that evil back in the box?
Shepard,
One does not have to see a rotting fish to smell it. By their actions and the fruits of those actions do we know enough about them to know their nature.
The FBI “investigation” of Hillary Clinton emails was a sham of such breathtaking ‘incompetence’ as to destroy all credulity as to its veracity.
Brennan and Clapper are proven liars in testimony before Congress.
Comey should be in prison. As should Holder.
McCabe’s conflict of interests and recent revelations reveal him to have acted in an entirely partisan manner. His recent testimony before Congress was entirely evasive.
The rot’s smell is so foul as to leave no doubt of its existence. You don’t need to know the exact particulars of a feces laden stable to know that it requires washing out.
We don’t need to know what leverage the Deep State possesses, to recognize Congressional inaction in the face of blatant deep state malfeasance and to realize that partisan ideology and fear of exposure are the two most likely reasons for that inaction.
To engage in blatant criminality without consequence is by any measure, real power.
JJ,
I’m worried that it’s too late. Not just governments but also private companies–everyone keeps getting better and better at collecting data on the public and manipulating its behavior. Look at Apple with its slowing down old phones to “preserve battery life” but also conveniently influencing customers to shell out another grand on a phone before they need to feplace the one they’ve got. It’s pervasive. I’m worried that by the time thibgs have gotten so bad that we need to water the tree of liberty, things will have gotten so subtly bad that no one will do it…or even notice that they need to.
om:
🙂
Shepherd:
Conspiracy Theories are the refuge of the weak-minded.
However, that does not mean that *emergent behaviour* driven by technological and social developments + innate human nature (corruptible, will to power, fear of others grabbing the Ring) doesn’t mandate can *appear* very much as if there is in fact a giant Conspiracy with a Capital C.
And if descriptions of what I believe the Deep State is up to sound a bit apocalyptic or hand-waving, that’s because nobody (not even the biggest baddiest Evil Geniuses in the 3-Letter Agencies) can see all of it. Parts of the Deep State can be Zigging with one objective in mind whilst another part Zags toward something entirely different. Either way, if Senator X or Justice Y fapped off in front of a webcam in 2006, they’re both now Somebody’s Bitches. Or Several Competing Bodies’ Bitches. As i said, Emergent Behaviour. Imagine a school of fish or a flock of birds.
And just because the whole thing seems unpleasant and rather terrifying (which it is) and just because I cannot Prove it with a P, instead of knee-jerking away from it, sit down, have a coffee and meditate on the old Australian Koan:
Q: Why does a dog lick its balls?
A: Because it CAN.
CAN has a terrible logic all of its own. Once new capabilities become widespread, they WILL be used.
That simple. No smoke and mirrors and Elders of Zion or Illuminati or Skull & Bones. Just CAN. And money and power and fear and paranoia and cupidity and all the other good old stuff that the polite and genteel amongst us hope never to have to confront.
Occam’s Razor, try it sometime.
J.J. Says:
The temptation to use such data is irresistible for anyone seeking power. Data collection seemed such a great way to combat terrorism. But it has opened a Pandora’s box — at least for privacy and freedom. How do we stuff that evil back in the box?
To my knowledge, intelligence hasn’t stopped many (if any) attacks. In fact, we know of a few failures even though authorities had the intel but wouldn’t use it because of PC.
If there’s almost no benefit while the dangers of abuse have become real (and manifest), then it doesn’t seem like a difficult choice.
Repeal the Patriot Act, and return the IC to the state it was prior to 9/11, but with some safeguards against “stovepiping.” DESTROY all data collection centers.
And speaking of conspiracies, I keep wondering whether AG Sessions is being blackmailed. I can think of no other reasonable explanation for his passivity, seeming weakness and continuing laissez-faire attitude about the DOJ and FBI shenanigans.
Unless, or course, he knows for certain that the soon-to-be-released IG Horowitz investigation report will thoroughly clean out our Augean stables all by itself? [Too much to hope for]
Until he was appointed AG he was a dependably conservative (and relatively active and outspoken) Senator. What the hell is happening with him?
Or maybe–just hear me out, I know this sounfmds crazy but hear me out–Sessions maybe isn’t taking the dramatic actions you’d expext him to take in the face of an evil conspiracy because there is no conspiracy?
I know I know, crazy. Obviously, there’s a huge evil conspiracy for which you have zero evidence (like Zigzag admitted in a comment that bot criticized conspiracy theories and then openly embraced a conspiracy theory). And then you’d expect to see some things if that conspiracy really did exist, like Sessions taking action. And when those things don’t materialize, you don’t reject the theory. Oh no, you just invent an all new conspiract theory about Sessions being blackmailed, out of whole cloth. Double down on the nonsense.
I prefer the obvious answer: the government is full of lazy, incompetent bureaucrats.
It doesn’t take a conspiracy for members of the deep state to operate in their own interests and against the current administration. When they all have the same interests there’s no need for them to coordinate their actions. Remember they voted and contributed to the Democrats by over a 10 to 1 margin. They live in such a liberal bubble that they don’t ever even hear the other side of the story.
Listen, I’ve known a lot of public servants, liberal and conservative and libertarian and every shade. And every single one I’ve known has known how to separate their private beliefs from their public service. I’ve known people who loathe the president–both this one and the last one–who managed to be grown ups and do their jobs professionally and objectively. I know liberals who think Trump is a corrupt, treasonous sociopath and conservatives who think Obama was a naive, vain weakling and still went to work every day providing apolitical service to their country because that’s what they signed up for. The government has a lot of problems but in my years in the service I mostly saw patriots doing their best in the face of cumbersome bureaucracy. I didn’t see a Deep State. I’m not sure when they’d find the time to run a conspiracy in between doing their jobs, filling out endless paperwork, and doing their mandatory CBT.
But you folks who have no evidence and have probably never seen the government at work or known anyone in government but you somehow know about a Deep State so powerful that the president himself is powerless in the face of it but so weak that YOU know all about it. Sure.
Shepherd:
Keep trolling and assuming what “you folks” know and don’t know, and keep on asserting your superiority because YOU have known some public servants who are the good guys.
Do you even begin to understand what you sound like?
Or should I say what “you folks” sound like? 🙂
By the way, one of the marks of a troll is the phrase “you folks.”
Hey remember when I said you were obsessed with whether I was a troll? Probably because 100 percent of your interactions have been about whether I’m a troll and zero about the substance of my comments.
Look, I get, conservatives are supposed to support their party over country and never question their elected officials as long as they have an R next to their name–just kidding! But these days, a person can assert without any proof at all that Jeff Sessions is being blackmailed by an imaginary Deep State and no one bats an eye, but I committed the doubleplus ungood thoughtcrime of questioning our Dear Leader and I’m a troll.
Shoot, you caught me red handed! All I did was disagree with the orthodoxy. But if conservatives are so unwilling to examine our own mistakes that we’ll concoct a fantast Deep State conspiracy instead of taking a hard look at how we got ourselves into this mess, then the drubbing we’ll take in 2018 will be historic. And that’s what I want desperately to avoid but I’m afraid we deserve it. Check out 538–yeah, liberal pollsters but also the only ones who honestly reported the possibility of a DJT win. Based on the math, R’s could lose over 100 seats in the House. But sure, I’m a troll and you can look for Jeff Session’ blackmailer the way OJ looked for the real killer.
Anyway, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to ALL YOU FOLKS 🙂
Thanks Neo, I didn’t realize what a troll I was dealing with. I won’t waste anymore time with him.
Actually his last post would have clued me in anyway but it’s nice to hear it from you.
Shepherd:
As I said before, I’m not at all obsessed with whether you’re a troll or not. I knew from the start that you were; it’s not a question.
But perhaps you don’t understand exactly what a troll is, or at least why I don’t engage with them ordinarily on the merits. There are basically two reasons.
The first is that other people here are more than capable of engaging with, answering, responding to, agreeing with or disagreeing with, any of the substantive issues you discuss and the points that you raise. There’s no need for me to do that, and it’s also ordinarily a waste of time to do it—which brings us to reason number two.
Reason number two—that it’s ordinarily a waste of time to engage with a troll on the merits—is something I’ve observed over the thirteen years I’ve been blogging. Thirteen years is a long long time to do this nearly every day. I’ve seen trolls come and I’ve seen them go, lots and lots and lots of them, and I learned many a long year ago that their favorite activity is to play various games. The games can be as simple as moving the goalposts, setting up strawmen, mindless generalities such as “you folks” this and “you folks” that, ignoring or “misunderstanding” points or questions raised by me or other commenters, stating “facts” that are untrue, truncated quotes, snarky tone, etc. etc.—the whole panoply of tools in the kitbag of people who come to a blog to insult but mostly to annoy and waste time.
However, sometimes (rarely, but sometimes) I do engage in substantive discussions with a troll, but only on topics that especially interest me for some reason.
Is there a way I could have possibly made my point withoit yoi accusing me of being a troll? Because it seems like you pegged me as one from the first word, and all I did was express my disagreement with the orthodoxy. I’ve never moved goalposts, I’ve never stated anything untrue, I’ve never truncated quotea, and where I come from “you folks” is a friendly way of adressing, you know, a bunch of folks you’re talking to. Maybe in New England it’s only something trolls say but not around here. So it sure seems like you mostly just hate people disagreeing with you and speaking their minds differently.
Shepherd:
Plenty of ways to have made all your points minus the snark, and the condescending and superior attitude. There are plenty of arguments here on plenty of threads with plenty of people who are respectful in tone.
“You folks” followed by an insult is not a friendly way of talking anywhere, even in the South, where insults are often veiled in sweetness (such as “bless your heart,” for example). Your words: “you folks who have no evidence and have probably never seen the government at work or known anyone in government…” is very much as example of troll-like behavior. You actually have zero idea whether people here have seen the “government at work” or have known anyone in government. I certainly have seen and known both, and I have little doubt that plenty of people who read here and comment here have, as well.
You seem like an intelligent person with good reading comprehension, and yet you seemed to not understand that I was speaking about trolls in general when I made that list of things like truncated quotes and strawmen, and was giving examples of the sorts of things trolls often do in order to waste time, things that lead me to not engage with them. I was speaking about an experience of over a decade, not specifically of you. It was very obvious from what I said that I was speaking of trolls in general and giving a laundry list of possibilities, and that I was certainly not saying you were doing all those things.
Also, you keep coming across as being from a particular part of Canada where some previous trolls here have originated, and I’m not sure what that’s about, although you say you’re from Virginia.
Since you have completely derailed the conversation, I’d be apt toncall YOU a troll if this weren’t your own web page. But by”you folks” I only meant Zigzag and Carl and Geoffrey, to a degree, the people making pretty crazy claims with zero evidence. Saying they lack experience with government is my guess, not an insult, and since I’m not going to show you my references I only mention mynbackground to explain my position, not as proof of anything. Geez.
Carl even made up an entirely new conspiracy theory to explain the lack of evidence for another conspiracy. If that passes without comment from you, but you spend this much time hassling me, then I can’t help but think you’re singling me out for disagreeing and not anything I have actually done.
I don’t know what the deal is with the Canada thing and I don’t know anything about this Canadian troll. Can you imagine how frustrating it is to be a conservative worried about the future of his cointry and party and have to spend time explaining that you’re not a Canadian?
Shepherd:
It may be frustrating to you to be told your identifiers say that you’re Canadian. However, it’s a fact that they do. I’m sure it’s a frustrating fact if you aren’t actually Canadian, but the point is that it’s part of the reason you’re coming across as a troll. But only part.
The other reason is things like the following—which I’ll just take from your most recent comment here. Your remarks are in quotes, addressing me.
“Since you have completely derailed the conversation…”
I have derailed nothing. One of the main things we were talking about was your style of commenting here, and whether you could or should be defined as a troll. Everyone (including you) has been free to continue to talk about the article written by Attkisson, which is the subject of this post.
“I’d be apt to call YOU a troll if this weren’t your own web page.” Certainly a hostile remark.
“But by ‘you folks’ I only meant Zigzag and Carl and Geoffrey, to a degree, the people making pretty crazy claims with zero evidence. Saying they lack experience with government is my guess, not an insult…” But “you folks” is a general response rather than a specific one. If you meant a few specific people you should have said so. No one reads your mind; the impression people get of you here is based on what you write here. If you are guessing at something, you need to say that, as well. Speaking of “no evidence,” you had absolutely no evidence for your “guess”—and yes, it is insulting to assume something like that without any evidence for it. It is condescending and offputting, as well as being based on nothing.
I definitely do not reply to most comments or most commenters here. Lack of response on my part does not signal assent.
In your case, as I already said, there are plenty of ways for you to have made all your points minus the snark and the condescending and superior attitude. Had you done that, the only attention you would have drawn is to the content of what you were saying, just as is the case with plenty of other commenters here who don’t agree with what I’m saying or what other commenters are saying. It is not troll-like to disagree, although you keep accusing me of your disagreement being the real reason I call you a troll (in fact, earlier you wrote that that I “just hate people disagreeing with you and speaking their minds differently”). However, there have been quite a few commenters on this blog for ten years or so who disagree with me at almost every turn, which makes your accusation almost humorous.
Shepherd-
For what it’s worth I was once a government employee, having worked at the VA for a number of years, not to mention my time in the military. Also my father was a lifelong government employee having worked for HUD. Like you I saw many good people “doing their best in the face of cumbersome bureaucracy”. It should be obvious though, that these are not the people being referred to when we talk about the Deep State.
To claim that “us folks” have no evidence of higher level government employees working to undermine a duly elected President and his party is nothing short of ridiculous. Did you even read the Sharyl Attkisson article the post was based on? Have you followed the Lois Lerner and the IRS scandal, at the Justice Department, the EPA, and all the others? The evidence is overwhelming.
The Deep State wouldn’t be deep if it was just the FBI, NSA, and other Congress critter reviewed and funded and oversighted bureaucratic agencies.
The Deep State is the layer that is not in Congressional control, like the Federal Reserve, or black funded units operating via domestic and foreign intel networks.
It’s why people can notice corruption in various US governments, but they can’t link the conspiracies together. That’s because the conspiracy isn’t centered around the politicians or their bureaucrats in DC, but commanded by deeper controllers below that layer.
Again Americans refuse to believe in conspiracy theories… meanwhile they absolutely believe in conspiracy facts such as do not trust intel networks like the CIA. Except… well that’s exactly what everyone else says about the CIA, foreign born or anti American or conspiracy nut.
The modern world is to the point where people think they have an idea of what the truth is. Somebody does, but few know who they are.
Shepherd Says:
December 26th, 2017 at 10:35 pm
Either the Deep State is deep, powerful, and secretive…in which case, how can so many people know its secrets well enough for random commenters to offer sweeping, declarative opinions on it?
…or else it’s not very deep or secretive, since everyone seems convinced that they know enough about the Deep State to have opinions about it, in which case, how powerful can it really be?
Look up Operation Paperclip. There’s a thousand layers to this onion, not so “simplistic” a network as politicians->bureaucrats. Most humans are too lazy to do their own research: hence the problem with humanity.
That’s only 2 layers, how the heck is that DEEP?
1000 layers is deep. 5-10 layers is pretty good too.
Compartmentalization. Got to learn the lingo before analyzing open source on CIA and black funded unit operations. Also, coincidentally, a conspiracy theory topic: compartmentalization removes the need for hundreds of thousands of people to keep the same secret.
Occam’s razor was originally the simplest route to the solution is the most efficient and therefore usually the best. That means instead of walking 6 miles in a square, you can walk 2 mile to the destination. However, in warfare, direct isn’t necessarily the best. Goes double for conspiracy facts and intel networks, whether funded by Congress or funded by sources unknown to the President’s cabinet, and the other 2 branches.
If the solution cannot be arrived using the direct route, then the indirect route would be the best. If the direct route takes longer or more resources than the indirect route, then the indirect route is the simplest. Most people have perverted and corrupted the meaning of Occam’s Razor to mean equivalent to Alexander cutting the Gordian Knot. Problems do not always have a direct solution where you can cut through it using your own logical shortcuts, although people who think their IQ is high or have an overly developed ego and sense of self importance, tend to believe they can cut through any Gordian Knot: aka Occam’s Razor applies to everyone and everything.
Not even the best minds in America have resolved social security. That is not because their egos are insufficiently Supreme, to the narcissist, but because the problem is bigger than Americans realized. Occam’s Razor is not to “defund social security”, but rather to find the simplest solution to it that is feasible. Cutting through the Gordian Knot is also not about funding, it’s about killing the proponents of SS. Politics can work too, but only if the Deep State allows it.
The simplest solution in the world, that does not work and even has never worked, is only for idiots: thus Marxism.
But conspiracy theories are attractive because they’re flattering. They tell you that there’s a powerful secret that virtually no one knows about, but YOU are so clever that you see through all the deception.
Heh, that doesn’t work for proponents of Flat Earth model theories. The reason is rather simple, via Occam’s Razor. As Hussein said twice or more, we don’t have time (to be idiots) for the Flat Earth Society.
So why would someone join the modern FE model trending movement of conspiracy fact/theory, if it makes 99% of the people around them think they are dumb? By the logic of one human that is not even in the top 3%, you’d have to be a super American idiot to join a movement considered the top of idiocy, to make yourself feel and look smart.
Conspiracies and sub cultures are not quite as cookie cutter as Occam’s Razor corrupters would prefer.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
December 26th, 2017 at 11:38 pm
Shepard,
One does not have to see a rotting fish to smell it. By their actions and the fruits of those actions do we know enough about them to know their nature.
All one had to do in 2009 was to assume the Left was evil, Demoncrats were run by Demons for Demons, and that Hussein was a Leftist, to conclude that when DC was firing so many generals from the US military: the US military would be next on the Gramsci march.
It doesn’t take much brain power to figure that one out; it is definitely not equivalent to calculating Pi in your head without paper or equations. Nor is it NASA “rocket science”. All it took was one paragraph. Strangely though, humans don’t see things they don’t want to see. Or as RUmsfeld said, there are unknown unknowns. Although this one was a known unknown, the known Hussein that was unknown. In other words, having a good capture of the VIP or HVT for extraction/assassination, requires understanding their human profile, rather than being too optimistic.
The same applies for when GB is looking at the Deep State. Although I’ve made mention before that what most Americans think of as the Deep State is merely the surface State: the Alt Right coined the term Deep State and it was originally used to mean the Federal Reserve, banks, and for more one encroaches upon conspiracy theory territory. Although that “term” is now a days not quite what it used to be, given that the mainstream Demoncrats and Republican E also believe in Conspiracies: they just think those are FACTS.
People can make the right conclusions using a profiling method, without knowing any of the details: although figuring out details via open source data is recommended as it removes false positives and verifies true positives.
If conspiracies are so degenerate in human talent why do various governments use it to imprison people: https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com
Conspiracy charges are charges that a person has entered into an agreement with another person to commit a crime or an illegal act. A successful conviction for a conspiracy charge requires that an act was taken to begin carrying out the agreemetn. Before a defendant makes any final decisions about how to proceed with a conspiracy allegation, they should understand the nature of the charges, any possible defenses, and the penalties associated with the charge.
Elements of Conspiracy Charges
Many people assume that a conspiracy charge requires a large number of people or a substantial amount of criminal activity. In actuality, a conspiracy charge actually requires a great deal less. Generally, to support conspiracy charges, the prosecution must prove that (1) a person entered an agreement, (2) with at least one other person, and (3) that at least one person to the agreement performed an act to further the agreement.
A conspiracy charge really punishes people for doing just a little more than entering into an agreement to commit a crime with another person. The conspiracy is complete once one person does something to start working on completing the agreement. The level of this “one thing” will vary by state, but many do not require a high level of activity. In some states, for example, the act taken in furtherance of the agreement doesn’t even have to constitute a substantial step in the commission of the actual offense. For example, if a person agrees to help another person sell drugs and then gives that person information about or directions to where to sell or purchase certain controlled substances, then the conspiracy was complete once the first person gave directions–which constituted an act to further the agreement. The action taken does not have to be a criminal act in and of itself.
The government, is of course superior. And the Leftists, zombies, and demons living on this Earth, are much superior than you humans here. Which is why they act like the way they do: you can’t do anything about it or about them.
Ok, so now you’re seeing hostility when all I’ve ever expressed is exasperation. What’s left to say? You made up your mind from the start and here we are.
Chris,
Without a doubt there’s corruption. Despite what the Left would have us believe, public servants are just people and are not inherently good or selfless. But I object to the nonsensical notion that there’s some conspiracy so deeply rooted that it poses a threat to the pres but so in the open that we can talk about it as if we know what we’re talking about.
The original post was about the IC, but only a small part of the FBI is part of the IC, and the article conflates misbehavior in the DOJ with misbehavior in the IC. They’re not the same thing, but we’re supposed to trust that someone who doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the distinction knows about a secret conspiracy? It’s one thing to identify problems in the DOJ, IC, FBI, IRS. But it’s another to conclude that it’s all connected based on zero evidence. And when you’re presented with contrary evidence, you can conclude there’s no conspiracy, our you can double down and concoct a new conspiracy to explain the lack of evidence for the first conspiracy.
Unless you want to believe that a few bad incidents with no obvious connections to each other automatically connect through some sort of systemic plot to do evil, in which case, when did you join Black Lives Matter?
The simplest explanation to all the DOJ efforts against the pres is, of course, that DJT–a serial liar and philanderer and self-confessed sexual assaulter who built his businesses on fraud–either did something corrupt or at least gave a reasonable appearance of corruption that they’re under an actual, reasonable investigation, and people are conflating an actual reasonable investigation with something at the IRS into a silly conspiracy.
They know it to be true, some of them. The rest of humanity will figure it out in due time: US dollar bill Novus ordo seclorum.
People figured out that the Left was doing something to hijack the US military… years afterwards of the initial analysis but still better late than never.
If American suffering and Leftist joy was the theme of 2008-2016, then from 2016-2024 the theme will be Conspiracies and Deep State.
Standard Deviation in statistics. 68%. 3% top. Specific outliers like me.
The Normals belong in the 68%. The leaders are above them. The Ruling Class above the sub leaders. The Deep State above DC and The Ruling Class. Then there’s the outlier or the ultimate, above even the Deep State.
How to counter the Deep State? Try charging them with conspiracy charges… assuming the FBi doesn’t neutralize you or the IRS or SWAT teams or Waco 1 ATF or Waco 2 FBI death squad kill teams.
So only Death works against humans. If humans are in the Deep State, make them die. Alternatively, there is Truth and a Higher Power than Death. One can easily guess what that is. The highest power over mortals IS DEATH. So how can one overcome death itself…. one would have to be an immortal to do so, not a mortal human flawed sheep degenerate masses.
But I object to the nonsensical notion that there’s some conspiracy so deeply rooted that it poses a threat to the pres but so in the open that we can talk about it as if we know what we’re talking about.
Hahaha. The US President.. supposedly the most powerful leader in the world.
One shot + a few more, and JFK went away. That’s why they call it the JFK Assassination Conspiracy.
Lincoln didn’t have an SS. Reagan did.
The sure fire way to kill a US President is to hijack the SS, the Praetorian Guard or the Royal Guards. Don’t need assassins that are trick shots when the person’s own bodyguards are in on it.
Oh btw, what did Michelle O and Hussein do with the SS again? Something… can’t remember: blackmail and blacks in it. Black Panthers… hey, aren’t those boy scouts or something that we can trust with Trum’s life. That’s good right.
Trum is a tool and a semi puppet. His only use in DC is if he stays alive, which I cannot guarantee.
So people thinking the Deep State is all about controlling the US President: pretty laughable at what level their capability and intel analysis is at.
To claim that “us folks” have no evidence of higher level government employees working to undermine a duly elected President and his party is nothing short of ridiculous.
See how they are taunting you Chris?
You would have had that evidence, had the government not deleted it. NSA probably kept it though for their own use. CIA/FBI have their own copies.
You have no evidence (because we made sure to delete it). They so enjoy taunting you. Sure, some of them are just cannonfodder, they are know nothings. So what, they still enjoy it at your expense.
That’s just how Leftists are. Zombies would be better as tools.