The Real Reason General Flynn Was Forced to Resign
http://www.anonews.co/general-flynn-resign/
"In reality, Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak was merely the excuse that establishment neo-cons and neo-libs from both parties were desperately searching for. They wanted him gone from the very beginning. This was a deep state coup".
Flynn is an InfoWars conspiracy theorist and believed that Islam and Christianity are at war. He's as big of a clown as his former boss. Good riddance,asshole.
Because he lied. Or because he decided to take the fall.
Deep state coup? Is that like deep dish pie?
Flynn is an InfoWars conspiracy theorist and believed that Islam and Christianity are at war. He's as big of a clown as his former boss. Good riddance,asshole.
All very true however I think the Anonymous article points out some very good points about who and why.
Deep state coup? Is that like deep dish pie?
This is a new catch phrase, sort of like “coloured revolutions”.
My understanding the phrase is to cover “the unnamed and unseen public government employees that saves the state from collapsing.”
Deep state coup? Is that like deep dish pie?
#pizzagate
Flynn is an InfoWars conspiracy theorist and believed that Islam and Christianity are at war. He's as big of a clown as his former boss. Good riddance,asshole.
And lusted for war with Iran.
Flynn is an InfoWars conspiracy theorist and believed that Islam and Christianity are at war. He's as big of a clown as his former boss. Good riddance,asshole.
And lusted for war with Iran.
Yup. all the more reason (as some articles have speculated) why it doesn't make sense that he'd do this on his own. So who do you think told him to?
Deep state coup? Is that like deep dish pie?
This is a new catch phrase, sort of like “coloured revolutions”.
My understanding the phrase is to cover “the unnamed and unseen public government employees that saves the state from collapsing.”
Except that as originally used by a certain type of left-winger, it seemed to mean anything the state does in secret, especially if it somehow involves subterfuge or crime. As such, it's been used to include things like the Bay Of Pigs, even though that wasn't preventing the American state from collapsing. (It failed, but the state is still there.)
The past few days, I've seen it used in a more complimentary sense, but with the meaning that you ascribe to it, something like "The permanent members of the bureaucracy who resist illegitmate pressure from interloping elected officials." Which I suppose might verge on subterfuge, though as I say, the intended meaning really does seem to be more positve. We're supposed to be glad that the CIA is refusing to share intel with Trump, for example.
The place I remember seeing this complimentary usage was Slate.com, whose writers sometimes tend toward the slapdash. So they might not have been aware of its previous negative connotations.
Deep state coup? Is that like deep dish pie?
This is a new catch phrase, sort of like “coloured revolutions”.
My understanding the phrase is to cover “the unnamed and unseen public government employees that saves the state from collapsing.”
Except that as originally used by a certain type of left-winger, it seemed to mean anything the state does in secret, especially if it somehow involves subterfuge or crime. As such, it's been used to include things like the Bay Of Pigs, even though that wasn't preventing the American state from collapsing. (It failed, but the state is still there.)
The past few days, I've seen it used in a more complimentary sense, but with the meaning that you ascribe to it, something like "The permanent members of the bureaucracy who resist illegitmate pressure from interloping elected officials." Which I suppose might verge on subterfuge, though as I say, the intended meaning really does seem to be more positve. We're supposed to be glad that the CIA is refusing to share intel with Trump, for example.
The place I remember seeing this complimentary usage was Slate.com, whose writers sometimes tend toward the slapdash. So they might not have been aware of its previous negative connotations.
Slate writers (or anyone else) deciding to fight for ownership of the "deep state" meme would be a very positive development, I think. As opposed to just ceding ownership of "deep state" to the right.
we have anonymous siding with Trump and the righteous Flynn. huh.
we have anonymous siding with Trump and the righteous Flynn. huh.
The writer talks about "globalists" being behind the supposed coup. Whatever the laudable usage that term has occassionally found on the left, it seems a little tainted to me, via its currency among the isolationist Right, monetary-reformers etc. I'm wondering what the particular slant of that Anonymous group is. My understanding is that they are not a centralized orgnaization with one coherent party line.
we have anonymous siding with Trump and the righteous Flynn. huh.
The writer talks about "globalists" being behind the supposed coup. Whatever the laudable usage that term has occassionally found on the left, it seems a little tainted to me, via its currency among the isolationist Right, monetary-reformers etc. I'm wondering what the particular slant of that Anonymous group is. My understanding is that they are not a centralized orgnaization with one coherent party line.
They spell it (((globalists)))
Flynn apparently lied to the FBI.
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/gen-michael-flynn-allegedly-lied-to-the...
They spell it (((globalists)))
For any here who haven't heard of it, the triple parentheses is a signal used by the alt-right to indicate a Jew.
Seems complicated. Even Adbusters went with a very recognizable yellow star.
Seems complicated. Even Adbusters went with a very recognizable yellow star.
A sheriff's star!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/five-eyes-network-threat-1.3986265?cmp=rss
"Canadian intelligence agencies could end up feeling the pain of the bruising political fight unfolding in Washington over leaks and the alleged ties of some in the Trump administration to Russia, experts warned on Thursday."
I'm not usually big on conspiracy theories, but it does seem possible that there is a faction of the intelligence community that has the capabilities to conduct outside-the-grid actions. We all know of those assassinations of nationalistic leaders in developing nations that seem to be just a bit too convenient for the U.S., particularly large U.S. corporations that exploit the country. Then there's the Iran-Contra affair...never quite made sense for Reagan to have ordered it in my mind.
I'm just a bit afraid that Trump may very well be brushing the 'deep state' the wrong way and that we'll all pay big consequences.
I'm just a bit afraid that Trump may very well be brushing the 'deep state' the wrong way and that we'll all pay big consequences.
Presuming such a thing as the deep state exists, and that they choose to act against Trump, will we (or, if you prefer, the world or the Americans) pay the bigger consequences if Trump wins, or if he loses?
VOD said:
The past few days, I've seen it used in a more complimentary sense, but with the meaning that you ascribe to it, something like "The permanent members of the bureaucracy who resist illegitmate pressure from interloping elected officials." Which I suppose might verge on subterfuge, though as I say, the intended meaning really does seem to be more positve. We're supposed to be glad that the CIA is refusing to share intel with Trump, for example.
This, 100%. That the Democrats are cheering on a deep state coup is not surprising, but I am surprised and dismayed by the amount of it coming from US progressive media.
deep state coup lmao.
it's really called making Trump abid by the laws of the land.
deep state coup lmao.
it's really called making Trump abid by the laws of the land.
:D
I was hoping the new forums would have a thumbs up option. I guess a smilie will have to do.
Sure does seem to be what makes him most twitchy. And twittery during those 5 am visits to the throne.
The deep state is a shorthand for the Pentagon, the CIA, DHS, FBI and assorted other acronymns that make up the intelligence and secret service community in Washington. US progressives cheering on the CIA's leaks should be careful what they wish for. Trump, for all his many many faults, was elected.
If they want to make Trump abide by the laws of the land, they should release evidence that he is or did break the law.
Glen Greenwald discussing this with the BBC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwobebBEMzY
That has already happened - when the courts struck down his first travel ban.
And it isn't siding with the FBI to recognize they are right in pointing out Trump is not telling the truth in his allegations of wiretapping. This isn't so much a case of allegiance with the right, as it is of Trump being so incompetent and so far out there that he is alienating everyone across the political spectrum.
As for "deep state", that is just the latest shorthand for the same conspiracist nonsense. Are there powerbrokers who maintain control regardless of who is in power? Sure. So it shouldn't be a newsflash that those powerbrokers are in the oval office and in congress, right where they usually are.
Smith: You don't know if the FBI is right or Trump's allegations of wiretapping are right. No evidence has been presented on either side of it.
Regarding conspiracist nonsense -- Once again you caricature opposing viewpoints without bothering to argue yours. Snowden revealed that the CIA was conducting mass illegal survellience of American citizens without informing Congress and the president, much less seeking their permission. The Greenwald video posted above descibes some other highlights from recent history of these agencies activities in the world.
Exactly. Investigating Trump for his corruption, violations of law and abuse of power is not a coup, deepstate or otherwise. If so, I guess Watergate was a coup because Deep Throat was the number 3 man in the FBI.
Here is an interesting video (about 12 minutes long) which discusses the relevance of the term "deep state" to the current situation. The presenter cites and quotes from some pretty solid sources.
Democracy Now video on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY1MiNfwcRg
"Some supporters of Trump, including Breitbart News, have accused the intelligence agencies of attempting to wage a deep state coup against the president. Meanwhile, some critics of Trump are openly embracing such activity. Bill Kristol, the prominent Republican analyst who founded The Weekly Standard, wrote on Twitter, "Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state." We talk about the deep state with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, co-founder of The Intercept."
Josh: The "deep state coup" isn't about investigations. It's about leaks (of Signals intelligence) and unsubstantiated statements from current and former intelligence officals that Trump is an agent of Russia, can't be trusted with national intelligence, etc. For which, apart from statements from unidentified sources, they have presented no evidence.
I did make my point, Mobo. The secretary of state is Rex Tillerson, FFS.
As for those connections, as I said, most of those freakouts have been on account of Trump's entourage being caught lying and later admitting to meetings. Maybe it's nothing, but if so, why so so twitchy?
And those CIA revelations? I read them this morning in the alleged deep state mouthpiece the New York Times. How'd that happen?
Smith: I no longer understand what you are saying at all. Your Post 28 appears to argue that the CIA/FBI/Pentagon or deep state is under control of congress and the president, that it has no autonomy, independent interests or power. If you are saying something else, please say it explicitly.
That they have an opinion on Trump's foreign policy or suitableness for president and act on that is to me a given. The two former heads of the CIA, during the campaign, backed Hillary Clinton and implied Trump was a russian stooge, because he made noises about working with the Russians in Syria and elsewhere.
Regarding CIA revelations in the New York Times, what is your point?
Not sure where you get that from. I didn't say that, but FBI director Comey pointed out that the president has no authority to wiretap anyone. He might have overstepped his authority back in October, but here he is telling the truth.
If Trump thinks otherwise it is kind of on him to ante up. Not to mention that as head of the executive branch if he wanted proof, all he would have to do is ask, and they would be obliged to provide that evidence.
I got it from this:
As for "deep state", that is just the latest shorthand for the same conspiracist nonsense. Are there powerbrokers who maintain control regardless of who is in power? Sure. So it shouldn't be a newsflash that those powerbrokers are in the oval office and in congress, right where they usually are.
As for the statements of FBI director Comey, why would it be surprising to you that the New York Times, "mouthpiece for the deep state", would publish statements from former intelligence officals and off the record sources within the CIA/FBI?
No, I didn't say anything about control over teh CIA and FBI, but if you want to see evidence of those powerbrokers and their influence, look at who is in cheetoface's cabinet. Why would the deepstate want to get them out of the way? Because opening up the arctic to Exxon foils their plans?
I was talking about the NYT publishing the latest Wikileaks claims about the CIA:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/world/europe/wikileaks-cia-hacking.ht...
This was fun to watch:
http://theweek.com/speedreads/684479/spicer-dodges-questions-wiretapping...
(edit)
Oh... this is the link I actually meant. Way better:
https://www.boston.com/news/media/2017/03/06/unusually-tense-interview-b...
That's not what the leaks are about. And for anyone coming to Trump's defense to cry about "unsubstantiated statements" is laughable.
Josh: What are the leaks about then? Impeaching Trump?
Regarding unsubstantiated statements, because Trump says many unsubstantiated things is no excuse for the press to take unsubstantiated statements from intelligence officials and present them as serious and credible, if not outright facts. Trump's disregard for truth doesn't dissolve the media's responsibility to report fairly.
I don't care at all if Trump advisors met with Russian officials. Would it be a good outcome for you if Trump was proven to be taking advice and support from Russia and was somehow impeached or stripped of power because of it?
What kind of support? Support by interfering in the election? Yes, that would be a good outcome.
As to the purpose of the leaks, I assume it's to get the facts out. In the face of someone for whom secrecy is a mania. As witnessed by the fact that he still refuses to release his tax returns. And how do you know the leaks aren't credible? If reporters didn't have anonymous sources in government, we wouldn't know a lot of what the public should know.
Josh: A few things I'm curious to get your thoughts on:
1. Do you think the media or leaks have made any credible case that Russia actually did interfere in the election? Has there been a smoking gun? (by interfere I assume you mean affected the outcome)
2. You are right I don't know if the leaks are credible or not. My point is that the media is saying they are credible without providing evidence as to why. Unless you accept the CIA's word as providing credibility.
3. Obama was much more of a maniac for secrecy than the Trump campaign. Most aggressive pursing of leakers and whistleblowers in the history of US presidents. Prosecuted reporters publishing leaks, Bradley Manning rotting in a cell, etc. Trump's argument is that the leaks are coming from former Obama loyalists out to prevent him from enacting his policies.
4. Hillary Clinton's campaign was supported by the previous two heads of the CIA, publically. Her campaign asserted often that Trump had inappropriate ties to Russia, and at times insinuiated he was compromised or some sort of russian agent. The former CIA heads echoed this in the media. As secretary of state, Hillary was in favour of regime change in Syria, wanted to establish a no-fly zone over Syria which would increase the likelihood of hostilities with the Russian air force. It is clear the CIA and Hillary had the same view of foreign policy in this area. Trump campaigned on the opposite view, that the US should be less aggressive to Russia.
5. Trump was duly elected. He has a right to pursue his policies, including his foreign policy on Russia.
Progressives who oppose Trump should oppose him using democratic means and not supoort or aid the CIA and DNC's attempt to get him removed by stroking fears of Russia. If the DNC/CIA's plan works, and Trump is removed, they'll use the same tactics on the next president who steps out of line, and that president may have policies progressives support.
I also am a fan of leaks. This wikileaks CIA dump is absolutely great news. If Trump officials lied and leaks can prove they lied, great. But there has been little proof and an onslaught of innuendo and insinuations. Also consider the relative importance of the leaks we are discussing. A Trump campaign adviser lied about meeting with the Russian ambassador. Under Obama, we had leaks that the CIA was spying on all americans, and that the President was killing people with flying robots.
You're all over the place. How can Obama be more secret than Trump when Trump refuses to disclose his tax returns. As every presidential nominee has done since Watergate. What's he hiding?
There's been sufficient circumstantial evidence to believe that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked the information to a third party to disclose. Not only did they have the means, but they had the motive. Which was to defeat Clinton and elect Trump. On whom they may or may not have compromising information and financial leverage. There were also contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian hire ups. What's needed is a full scale congressional investigation or independent counsel investigation. But so far the Republicans have stonewalled those efforts. All that's left is the FBI, and who knows where they stand after Comey's actions at the end of the campaign. And the media,
I've seen the pictures of many candidates from both parties meeting with ranking officers of an apartheid regime. I've also heard credible stories that both Hillary and Trump met privately with Israeli state officials during the election. So when does the congressional investigation into the Israeli influence on the US elections begin?
When they're caught conducting an electronic break-in of one of the parties, and disseminating that information.
When they lie about it. Particularly under oath during a confirmation hearing.
Roger Stone, a Donald Trump confidante and longtime Republican dirty trickster, communicated privately with a Russian hacking group identified by U.S. intelligence officials as the culprit in the theft of emails related to the Democratic presidential campaign.
Stone, who is under FBI investigation for his alleged ties to Russia, communicated through private Twitter messages with the “hacktivist” known as Guccifer 2.0 during the presidential campaign, reported The Smoking Gun.
So Eurasia is back to being the enemy and not Eastasia. Chinese hackers and the South Sea are just so passe. Hard to keep up with who Oceania is going to war with this year.
https://www.ft.com/content/b03bc7f0-9745-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582
