… with particular force because they see their entire edifice of power threatened.
I recall that, at the beginning of Trump’s first term, I started reading about the self-styled Resistance to Trump. The word was chosen for its Nazi-fighting associations: if they were the Resistance, who was Trump?
And when I say “at the beginning,” I mean the very beginning. I knew people who wanted him impeached before he’d done anything as president, and I first read an article about resistance [see *NOTE below] to Trump by government workers either prior to Trump’s first inauguration or shortly thereafter. That article was not an exposé by some reporter critical of the movement – it was a brag about how workers within the agencies were planning to sabotage and thwart whatever Trump was trying to do. They were extremely proud of themselves, and they were quite organized. I wish I could find the article today, but so far I haven’t located it.
The first time I wrote in depth about the movement was in this May 2017 post entitled “A slow-motion coup d’etat.” That was four months into Trump’s first administration. I didn’t invent the title; I took it from a Federalist article I was discussing that you can find here, and from which I will quote again. Looking at it now, almost exactly eight years later, I wouldn’t call the author a Trump supporter. But he is alarmed at the Resistance:
Arguably, what has been branded as “The Resistance” — but in actuality is the totalitarian might of the administrative state and their partisan allies — began with the Democratic Party’s scorched-earth campaign against the political nominations of the Trump White House. But beyond the partisan rancor of the legitimate and often frustrating nomination process, more sinister forces were at work.
Mother Jones, unwittingly, sheds light onto the mindset of the administrative state in a piece detailing the resistance of EPA bureaucrats. An anonymous and unelected government employee wrote to Mother Jones laying out a lengthy argument justifying his or her resistance to reforms by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and objection to directives from the White House [a lengthy quote from the letter follows] …
This is not the words of a dutiful civil servant but of a partisan tyrant who would see his own view, his own agenda, and his own lens of politics dominate over that of the elected government of the United States. In their minds they are but a guardian of the people, albeit one that must stand up to and ultimately negate the will of that very same people. …
Complicit with the authoritarian nature of the administrative state is factions within the United States intelligence community both inside and outside the White House. They have engaged in a campaign of selective leaks and plots to undermine the president of the United States and weave a media narrative of Russian influence, conspiracy, and now obstruction of justice. With their media allies, they have leaked information and intelligence that — while lacking any actual criminal element — has allowed a narrative to arise that casts a dark shadow over the White House and those who live and work in it.
A narrative comprised of the Russian government “hacking” the presidential election, collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and Trump being compromised by the Russian government dominated the media before the final votes of the election were even tallied. Skepticism was suspended for what can only be described as a concerted effort to undermine the elected president of the United States.
Shortly after the inauguration, this narrative escalated via select leaks …
It goes on for quite some time. And keep in mind that it was written eight years ago, and refers to efforts that began even before Trump’s inauguration.
If they felt threatened by Trump’s presidency then, imagine what they feel now. Well, you don’t have to imagine; in that very same periodical, The Federalist, Margot Cleveland wrote yesterday describing current efforts in the same direction by similar people.
And there’s this by Beth Brele, entitled “CNN: Deep State Bureaucrats Threaten To Sell State Secrets If Trump Isn’t Nice To Them.” It appeared in the Federalist yesterday, and says:
In the piece, CNN warned, “As the CIA weighs staff cuts, current and former intelligence officials say that mass firings could offer a rich recruitment opportunity for foreign intelligence services — like China or Russia — who may seek to exploit financially vulnerable or resentful former employees.”
The piece goes on.
“… on the CIA’s 7th floor — home to top leadership — some officers are also quietly discussing how mass firings and the buyouts already offered to staff risk creating a group of disgruntled former employees who might be motivated to take what they know to a foreign intelligence service.” …
Is that a threat from the CIA? Is CNN reporting that Trump should keep everyone employed because, if he doesn’t, former CIA agents will spill U.S. secrets to our enemies? Apparently so.
But if that’s the case, these are exactly the employees who should be fired.
That seems pretty obvious.
There’s also this sort of thing:
They feel more threatened than ever. What’s next?
[*NOTE: The first use of the term “resistance” i can find in this blog to describe the anti-Trump crowd was on February 28, 2017, about a month after his inauguration: see this. But it wasn’t the first time I’d heard of it.]
