"The Deep State" aka the American Intelligence Community

[a fan]

It's also obvious when you "choose" follow FoxNation's narrative on the "Obama" Deep State despite all the evidence that it's White House staffers and Trump appointees doing all the heavy lifting on the manipulation of Trump.

Don't want me to lump you in with FoxNation, but you get to lump all the libs together? Fine.

Then what's YOUR take on Woodward's book? What's YOUR take on Rosenstein getting caught discussing recording the POTUS, and using the 25th to get him removed?

How does this not tell you: here's the Deep State?

[dislaxxic]

Rod's job may be safe, at least til Thursday

...when Trumpy returns from mucking up the United Nations...

..

[Bandito]

Rod's job may be safe, at least til Thursday

...when Trumpy returns from mucking up the United Nations...

..

You mean from not letting the US get bossed around by globalists. Again, he is putting America first. Which is why he won the election you can't get over.

[tech37]

It's also obvious when you "choose" follow FoxNation's narrative on the "Obama" Deep State despite all the evidence that it's White House staffers and Trump appointees doing all the heavy lifting on the manipulation of Trump.

Don't want me to lump you in with FoxNation, but you get to lump all the libs together? Fine.

Then what's YOUR take on Woodward's book? What's YOUR take on Rosenstein getting caught discussing recording the POTUS, and using the 25th to get him removed?

How does this not tell you: here's the Deep State?

That's where we disagree (well, one place anyway). You want to sweep under the rug all that went on during the Obama to Trump transition period. I believe there was abuse of power directed at Trump Admin by both DOJ and FBI, and has morphed into the mess we have today. That transition period should be investigated by independent means.

No, I have not read Woodward's book. You seem to have discovered your new bible.

[MDlaxfan76]

It's also obvious when you "choose" follow FoxNation's narrative on the "Obama" Deep State despite all the evidence that it's White House staffers and Trump appointees doing all the heavy lifting on the manipulation of Trump.

Don't want me to lump you in with FoxNation, but you get to lump all the libs together? Fine.

Then what's YOUR take on Woodward's book? What's YOUR take on Rosenstein getting caught discussing recording the POTUS, and using the 25th to get him removed?

How does this not tell you: here's the Deep State?

That's where we disagree (well, one place anyway). You want to sweep under the rug all that went on during the Obama to Trump transition period. I believe there was abuse of power directed at Trump Admin by both DOJ and FBI, and has morphed into the mess we have today. That transition period should be investigated by independent means.

No, I have not read Woodward's book. You seem to have discovered your new bible.

tech, I think the point simply was that a whole lot of Trump appointees appear to be the active "Deep State" attempting to keep the country going entirely off the rails, resisting the impulsiveness of the current POTUS.

Hard to blame Obama or his administration for the Trump appointees.

I haven't read Woodward's book either, but we'd have to be quite off the grid to not know the key aspects of his reporting on this topic. Same with this notion that Rod Rosenstein (Trump appointee, lifelong R) made these statements. If he was actually seriously considering such actions (which I doubt) that would be damning confirmation that the 'resistance' is coming from Trump appointees, not Obama's.

My hunch on Rosenstein, however, is that he was saying something extreme, sarcastically, to make clear that these weren't viable options...but, instead, an investigation of the concerns about Trump and his campaign having colluded with the Russians was the appropriate course of action. Perhaps that's 'resistance' in the eyes of those who demand total loyalty to the President, rather than the Constitution.

[tech37]

Seacoaster got it immediately.

Seacoaster hates Trump...he is not objective. He hates Trump so much I would guess he would rather see the country do poorly than give Trump any credit.

[tech37]

It's also obvious when you "choose" follow FoxNation's narrative on the "Obama" Deep State despite all the evidence that it's White House staffers and Trump appointees doing all the heavy lifting on the manipulation of Trump.

Don't want me to lump you in with FoxNation, but you get to lump all the libs together? Fine.

Then what's YOUR take on Woodward's book? What's YOUR take on Rosenstein getting caught discussing recording the POTUS, and using the 25th to get him removed?
How does this not tell you: here's the Deep State?

That's where we disagree (well, one place anyway). You want to sweep under the rug all that went on during the Obama to Trump transition period. I believe there was abuse of power directed at Trump Admin by both DOJ and FBI, and has morphed into the mess we have today. That transition period should be investigated by independent means.

No, I have not read Woodward's book. You seem to have discovered your new bible.

tech, I think the point simply was that a whole lot of Trump appointees appear to be the active "Deep State" attempting to keep the country going entirely off the rails, resisting the impulsiveness of the current POTUS. I understand that, and that is not what I was referring to. a fan taking liberties. Did you not read what I just posted regarding the transition period and abuse of power?


Hard to blame Obama or his administration for the Trump appointees. Who did that?

I haven't read Woodward's book either, but we'd have to be quite off the grid to not know the key aspects of his reporting on this topic. Same with this notion that Rod Rosenstein (Trump appointee, lifelong R) made these statements. If he was actually seriously considering such actions (which I doubt) that would be damning confirmation that the 'resistance' is coming from Trump appointees, not Obama's. Obama's (that matter) are mostly gone. You're stating the obvious.

My hunch on Rosenstein, however, is that he was saying something extreme, sarcastically, to make clear that these weren't viable options...but, instead, an investigation of the concerns about Trump and his campaign having colluded with the Russians was the appropriate course of action. Perhaps that's 'resistance' in the eyes of those who demand total loyalty to the President, rather than the Constitution.

[a fan]

No, not a Bible. His book is yet another corroboration that what the Deep State is, is actually Trump's handpicked people trying to keep Trump from burning the House down.

I don't want to sweep anything under the rug. The DoJ already investigated and found nothing on Strozk and Page. Pretty easy to find nothing since no charges were levied against Trump....in other words, there was no underlying action taken by Page or Stroz or anyone else at the FBI and DoJ in terms of Trump.

Because what did the DoJ and FBI find on Trump? Nothing. A big fat nothing. Don't conspirators actually have to, you know, do something? Not just talk: act. Where's the action? There wasn't any. That's why Trump's walking around, un-indicted. I'm simply being reasonable here: time to move on on the FBI DoJ Deep State nonsense. Focus on the folks who are actively thwarting Trump.

We have the goods on Kelly. Remember how happy we all were that Kelly was the adult in the room, controlling Trump? What do you think the word "control" means in this context?

Deep State. Unelected government officials dictating policy. We have multiple, multiple sources on their actions now that we're 1 1/2 years in.

And as I wrote before: some of this action makes me feel good...that adults are handling Trump....while some of it scares me. This is an active coup d'etat. But instead of focusing on that, FoxNation (not you, tech) is focusing on trying to pin everything on Obama because, well FoxNation is filled with children who don't know up from down.

[dislaxxic]

Trumpy's Face Plant

Pure speculation on what happened today. It's behind the TPM subscription firewall.

"A bit more speculation. White House officials were clearly telling reporters with certainty this morning that Rod Rosenstein was out. There was ambiguity about whether he would be fired or resign, and that certainty seems to have been driven in large part by sources at the DOJ who made clear that Rosenstein would have to be fired. But I go back to the point that White House officials, at least until near the end, were saying this was a done deal. Rosenstein was out, only the details were to be determined.

So what happened?

I think some combination of two things happened. Both turn on President Trump’s personal cowardice.

As I said below, it seems likely that John Kelly either believed or wanted to believe that Rosenstein said he was open to resigning or would resign. It seems quite clear he was unwilling to do so. Otherwise there’s no way you end up with this sloppy and embarrassing public face plant. One strong possibility is that Kelly was not willing to fire Rosenstein himself. He insisted that the President do that. And Trump was unwilling.

As I suggested below, I think there’s a very good chance that that is why we went through this exercise this morning: Because President Trump wasn’t there and couldn’t be there in person. It was a way of getting Kelly to do the deed.

Alternatively, perhaps it wasn’t about Kelly refusing. It may simply have been that the White House was not willing to fire Rosenstein. He called their bluff and Trump folded.

Either way, Trump’s conflict averse nature is the key.

I should emphasize again: this is my speculation. But it is not idle speculation. It is based on clear, recurrent and reliable patterns President Trump has shown through his presidency and prior to it. Trump’s public persona as a no nonsense executive with his signature “you’re fired” tagline is utterly belied by the record of a man who is deeply conflict averse, a coward. He rails against underlings on Twitter and then apparently never makes the same comments to their face. Firing Rosenstein obviously has big consequences, both political and administrative.

It is highly unlikely that Rosenstein will either be fired or resign in that Thursday meeting with President Trump, if indeed that meeting happens at all. I would not at all rule it out tomorrow or the next day or at various times before that Thursday meeting, if it happens. But at the meeting? Doubtful.

There’s even a chance that this episode ends up strengthening Rosenstein’s position inasmuch as Trump showed his cards and then backed down."

..

[HooDat]

Either way, Trump’s conflict averse nature is the key.

what ?!?!?!?!!!

[dislaxxic]

I'd look at the paragraph after this statement to get an idea of what the author means by that.

That DOES jump out at you, right?

..

[seacoaster]

Seacoaster got it immediately.

Seacoaster hates Trump...he is not objective. He hates Trump so much I would guess he would rather see the country do poorly than give Trump any credit.

This, of course, is a completely hackneyed view of, or assertion about, anyone who doesn't like Trump. "You want the country to fail; you're not a patriot. Standing by the President, even when he is this President, makes me a better citizen," etc., etc. Let me unpack this a little for you (I've done this before, but you are Paul's and Artie's proverbial "man").

I do loath Trump. I think the economy was basically healthy under Obama. I think the tax "reform" touted by Trump as one of his principal achievements was a borrowed gift to wealthy Americans, leaving whatever trickles down -- after opulent spending, share buybacks, stock option strikes, etc -- to the dwindling middle class. It was regressive, unfair and over the long term (and here I mean real strategy, on the order of two decades or 25 years) bad for the country and the economy. I think Trump has weakened our trust in institutions crucial to a functioning democracy. I think that Trump has weakened and cheapened the meaning of the rule of law, and increased people's belief that the courts are a gamed system of haves and have-nots. I think his overall positive effect on the country in almost every discipline -- the economy, execution of the nation's laws, our foreign relations and the trust of other crucial allies across the globe -- is vastly outweighed by his negative or alarming effects and actions. His constant deliberate effort to divide the populace so that his minority coalition can give him an electoral college win is a cancerous thing for the country, even if it is clever of Trump.

I am not objective, because the facts on the ground tell me he is bad, even if my pocket is full of cash.

[HooDat]

I'd look at the paragraph after this statement to get an idea of what the author means by that.

That DOES jump out at you, right?

..

yeah, the statement on its face just makes you pause for a second that's all

[tech37]

I do loath Trump. I think the economy was basically healthy under Obama. For whom, the Mullahs and Chicoms? I think the tax "reform" touted by Trump as one of his principal achievements was a borrowed gift to wealthy Americans, leaving whatever trickles down -- after opulent spending, share buybacks, stock option strikes, etc -- to the dwindling middle class. It was regressive, unfair and over the long term (and here I mean real strategy, on the order of two decades or 25 years) bad for the country and the economy. Of course, there's nothing positive for the average American in the post-Obama economy. I think Trump has weakened our trust in institutions crucial to a functioning democracy. WOW, this is unreal! Who do you think politicized the Institutions? That was Obama my friend. Where were you when the IRS admitted to targeting conservative groups? Does Lois Lerner ring any bells for you? What did Trump have to do with that? This is what I mean... there was an established and admitted abuse of power at the IRS and you don't even blink. Why is that? What you and others fail to realize/admit is the Obama DOJ/FBI was politicized as well. That is why we need to find out who orchestrated the investigations targeting the Trump campaign and post-election admin. Unredact/release the documents. I think that Trump has weakened and cheapened the meaning of the rule of law, and increased people's belief that the courts are a gamed system of haves and have-nots. I think his overall positive effect on the country in almost every discipline -- the economy, execution of the nation's laws, our foreign relations and the trust of other crucial allies across the globe -- is vastly outweighed by his negative or alarming effects and actions. His constant deliberate effort to divide the populace so that his minority coalition can give him an electoral college win is a cancerous thing for the country, even if it is clever of Trump. And you honestly can't see or admit how Obama divided the country?

I am not objective, because the facts on the ground tell me he is bad, even if my pocket is full of cash. Well, you're an idealogue. Most people I think would/will give credit where it's due.

[seacoaster]

I have to say: You really are kind of a ninkompoop. Obama divided the country. "Mullahs and Chicoms." People who don't like Trump are ideologues. You're silly. My kids have a more nuanced view of the world and they're just starting out. Mr. Moderate. Jeez.

[tech37]

I have to say: You really are kind of a ninkompoop. Obama divided the country. "Mullahs and Chicoms." People who don't like Trump are ideologues. You're silly. My kids have a more nuanced view of the world and they're just starting out. Mr. Moderate. Jeez.

I'm stunned, stunned I tell ya...you must be brainwashed. There is no other explanation.

[MDlaxfan76]

I have to say: You really are kind of a ninkompoop. Obama divided the country. "Mullahs and Chicoms." People who don't like Trump are ideologues. You're silly. My kids have a more nuanced view of the world and they're just starting out. Mr. Moderate. Jeez.

I'm stunned, stunned I tell ya...you must be brainwashed. There is no other explanation.

Yikes, we all seem to have gotten a bit nasty. Probably would be good to dial back on the vitriol from all directions.

tech37, you really do appear to be all-in with the constant anger peddled on Fox and Breitbart and similar sources. Maybe you're not aware of the influences, but I hadn't previously gotten the impression that 'nincompoop' would be an apt description.

So, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on 'nincompoop'.
I think if you were a little less hyperbolic and seemingly repetitive of the Fox conspiracy, hate Obama baloney your points might be more persuasive or at least better received, and thus considered.

Indeed, I think there usually are good points to be made and considered, both 'conservative' and 'progressive', that we can actually disagree with one another about, yet be nuanced in our discussions. Let's at least try.

[a fan]

Tech37, remember when I said that conservatives would have put Obama on Mt. Rushmore if he only had a little R by his name, and you made fun of me?

Your comment about Obama's economy perfectly demonstrates why I was right. Mullah's and Chicoms?

Obama's R Congress wouldn't let him spend money to get the economy really moving.....because they wanted to "be frugal and shrink out of control spending"

Remember? Shut down the government over it? Remember the 2013 Sequester? Deficit is out of control? All that whining?

And yet here you are, complaining about the effect these choices had on "Obama's economy".

Fast forward to Trump, and here you are cheering. Do you not understand what you are cheering?

What do you supposed Obama would do if Congressional Republicans came to him and said "Hey Obama. We want you to increase Federal Spending by $2.7 Trillion dollars in the next 1 1/2 years, and not only do we not want to raise taxes to pay for that spending....that goes to everything from Billions to farmers for doing nothing, to bombs....we want you to cut taxes by a few billon dollars".

Now what would Obama say to that? "Gimme a pen before you change your mind".

And then to top that insanity off, Republicans would say to Obama: "Oh, we're not done. We also want you to start protecting Dem-voting American Unions using punitive tariffs in the Billions of dollars". Now Obama would want some of what the R's are smoking.

Tech37, Obama would have been OVERJOYED to do what Trump is doing right now. You and the R's didn't want him to do that. You wanted him to be frugal, so that's what you got. You ASKED for that economy.

Turning around and complaining about Obama's economy, while praising Trump's is....... well, I can't find the words.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'd look at the paragraph after this statement to get an idea of what the author means by that.

That DOES jump out at you, right?

..

yeah, the statement on its face just makes you pause for a second that's all

I agree; it's a striking statement given that it is so contrary to the notion of Trump as a 'Strong Man', 'fighter', etc.
Yet, it could well be far more accurate than those descriptors.

[tech37]

Tech37, remember when I said that conservatives would have put Obama on Mt. Rushmore if he only had a little R by his name, and you made fun of me?

Your comment about Obama's economy perfectly demonstrates why I was right. Mullah's and Chicoms? It was sarcasm. Iran came away with billions from the "Deal" and China has done whatever they wish, and until now no one has called them on it. No need to go off on your tariff dissertation a fan, I know you hate them.

Obama's R Congress wouldn't let him spend money to get the economy really moving.....because they wanted to "be frugal and shrink out of control spending" Granted

Remember? Shut down the government over it? Remember the 2013 Sequester? Deficit is out of control? All that whining?

And yet here you are, complaining about the effect these choices had on "Obama's economy". I'm not complaining about Obama's economy. Can I disregard the rest of your post now?

Fast forward to Trump, and here you are cheering. Do you not understand what you are cheering? You tell me a fan...you're a mind reader.

What do you supposed Obama would do if Congressional Republicans came to him and said "Hey Obama. We want you to increase Federal Spending by $2.7 Trillion dollars in the next 1 1/2 years, and not only do we not want to raise taxes to pay for that spending....that goes to everything from Billions to farmers for doing nothing, to bombs....we want you to cut taxes by a few billon dollars".

Now what would Obama say to that? "Gimme a pen before you change your mind".

And then to top that insanity off, Republicans would say to Obama: "Oh, we're not done. We also want you to start protecting Dem-voting American Unions using punitive tariffs in the Billions of dollars". Now Obama would want some of what the R's are smoking.

Tech37, Obama would have been OVERJOYED to do what Trump is doing right now. You and the R's didn't want him to do that. You wanted him to be frugal, so that's what you got. You ASKED for that economy.
I don't know what on earth you're talking about...that wasn't me.

Turning around and complaining about Obama's economy, while praising Trump's is....... well, I can't find the words. Me either.