Stretch (03-24-2017)
Last week the New Yorker, and yesterday Salon magazine, published editorials arguing against the very existence of an “American Deep State”. The arguments presented are very…interesting. Both are, perhaps, classic cases of protesting too much.
Remnick provides us with a little history on “Deep States”:
“Deep State” comes from the Turkish derin devlet, a clandestine network, including military and intelligence officers, along with civilian allies, whose mission was to protect the secular order established, in 1923, by the father figure of post-Ottoman Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. It was behind at least four coups, and it surveilled and murdered reporters, dissidents, Communists, Kurds, and Islamists. The Deep State takes a similar form in Pakistan, with its powerful intelligence service, the I.S.I., and in Egypt, where the military establishment is tied to some of the largest business interests in the country.
You see, he’s not arguing that Deep State power structures don’t exist – he willingly admits that they do – it’s just that they don’t have them in America. His argument for this is simple…or at least, it probably would be if he were to make one. What he actually DOES is simply describe how deep states work in other countries, and then leave an ellipsis that’s meant to convey “and of course none of that is true in the USA”, when in fact – again – it does the exact opposite.
What he does is supply us a short checklist of qualities which define a “Deep State”:
Clandestine and secretive
Involving military and intelligence officers
civilians allies
Protecting the status quo
coups
surveillance
assassinations
ties to big business interests
does that not sound the least bit familiar to anyone else? The first two are givens that need no explanation.
Civilian allies? Well, I would imagine that a planted and/or manipulated journalist would make a good “civilian ally”. Such a person could be used to “leak” information that brings down enemies of the Deep State. Or, indeed, to write clumsy editorials about how the Deep State doesn’t even exist.
Protecting the status quo. The protection of “secular order” in Turkey could easily be translated as the protection of the neo-liberal order in the United States. It is essentially a program of protecting those in power from any kind of change. In fact, the way Remnick writes about this mission, it’s almost as if he is arguing that the noble ends justify ignoble means. That’s an interesting subtext to include.
Coups, surveillance and assassinations. Turkey’s derin devlet was behind only four coups? That’s a busy morning at the CIA. Surveillance? Well, it has suited the MSM of late to pretend they didn’t tell us all about the level of surveillance we operate under every single day. But we all know. Assassinations? Yes, there are a few famous examples, and a few not so famous. Blowing the President’s head off in the middle of a public square probably counts.
Ties to big business? Well Eisenhower admitted that, and warned against it, sixty years ago. Soros Open Society Foundation frequently collaborates with the State Department, as does the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Pentagon’s ties to Boeing and Lockheed Martin are well documented, as is Dick Cheney’s involvement with Halliburton. The list is endless.
As an eight-point definition of a “deep state”, America’s power structures certainly seem to stand as a perfect template.
However, David Remnick is not alone in his ineffectual assertion that “there is no deep state, it just looks like there is”. Further arguments that there are no “secretive military and intelligence collectives” pushing their agendas through “civilian allies”, was published in Salon. It is an editorial on the exact same subject, published on the exact same day, with almost the exact same title.
The author, Ryan Bohl, argues (in apparent seriousness) that deep states are definitely real, that Egypt has one, but that American can’t have one…because America and Egypt are different.
His assertions that America “doesn’t have a deep state”, would probably hold more water if he displayed any kind of understanding of what the term actually means. Instead he has, in truly Orwellian fashion, redefined the phrase in order to present a counter-argument…and even then barely manages to scrape one together.
…a major flaw of the American Deep State theory is that a deep state needs a weak state to survive.
I’m not sure where Bohl got this statement from. I suspect he made it up. It means nothing, and is never backed up by any kind of sources, analysis or evidence.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/there-i...ere-is/5581373
Stretch (03-24-2017)
The "Deep State" is the Conservatives newest excuse for any bad thing that happens while they are in charge...
Something bad comes out about one of their guys... Deep State.
Their bills don't pass... Deep State.
They don't deliver on a campaign promise.. Deep State.
They have a majority in all three branches of the Federal Government so they have to invent a whipping boy, skate goat.
4,487
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
44 U.S.C. 2202 - The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
LOCK HIM UP!
On Thursday, the Obama administration finalized new rules that allow the National Security Agency to share information it gleans from its vast international surveillance apparatus with the 16 other agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community.
With the new changes, which were long in the works, those agencies can apply for access to various feeds of raw, undoctored NSA intelligence. Analysts will then be able to sift through the contents of those feeds as they see fit, before implementing required privacy protections. Previously, the NSA applied those privacy protections itself, before forwarding select pieces of information to agencies that might need to see them.
The updated procedures will multiply the number of intelligence analysts who have access to NSA surveillance, which is captured in large quantities and often isn’t subject to warrant requirements. The changes rankled privacy advocates, who oppose a broadening of surveillance powers—especially on the cusp of Donald Trump’s inauguration. Trump and Mike Pompeo, the president-elect’s nominee for CIA director, have made it clear that they think overzealous civil-liberties protections should be cleared away in favor of stronger surveillance laws.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...powers/513041/
Stretch (03-24-2017)
"Deep State" is a made up term that no message board wingnut ever used until they Breitbart and the broader wingnutosphere ordered them to start using it.
Kinda like wingnuts used to be overwhelmingly anti-Kremlin, pro-Urkaine, and anti-Putin....right up until a few months ago when discovered they liked the feeling of Trump's cock up their ass.
Obama Administration Approves Sharing of Raw NSA Intercepts
On January 12th, 2016, the Obama administration approved new rules which allow the NSA to share raw signals intelligence collected under Executive Order 12333 with other intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies such as the DEA, FBI, DHS, IRS, and even local and state police.
The order also allows the collection and sharing of “Incidentally obtained information that may indicate involvement in activities that may violate federal, state, local or foreign laws.” Unlike the interception of communications authorized under CALEA, the USA PATRIOT Act/USA FREEDOM Act, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the mass surveillance conducted under Executive Order 12333 has no congressional authorization or oversight, and it is authorized only by the President of the United States.
Prior to this latest amendment to E.O. 12333, the NSA would filter the intelligence they collected and would only share what they deemed pertinent to other intelligence agencies and to law enforcement. Now other agencies will be allowed to search the raw, unfiltered communications intercepted by the NSA.
Stretch (03-24-2017)
Republican congressional investigators expect a potential “smoking gun” establishing that the Obama administration spied on the Trump transition team, and possibly the president-elect himself, will be produced to the House Intelligence Committee this week, a source told Fox News.
Classified intelligence showing incidental collection of Trump team communications, purportedly seen by committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and described by him in vague terms at a bombshell Wednesday afternoon news conference, came from multiple sources, Capitol Hill sources told Fox News. The intelligence corroborated information about surveillance of the Trump team that was known to Nunes, sources said, even before President Trump accused his predecessor of having wiretappedhim in a series of now-infamous tweets posted on March 4.
The intelligence is said to leave no doubt the Obama administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump, according to sources.
The key to that conclusion is the unmasking of selected U.S. persons whose names appeared in the intelligence, the sources said, adding that the paper trail leaves no other plausible purpose for the unmasking other than to damage the incoming Trump administration.
The FBI hasn’t been responsive to the House Intelligence Committee’s request for documents, but the National Security Agency is expected to produce documents to the committee by Friday. The NSA document production is expected to produce more intelligence than Nunes has so far seen or described – including what one source described as a potential “smoking gun” establishing the spying.
Some time will be needed to properly assess the materials, with the likely result being that congressional investigators and attorneys won’t have a solid handle on the contents of the documents – and their implications – until next week.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...urce-says.html
Stretch (03-24-2017)
FYI: The Obama Administration was "in charge" over the past 8 years up to the date, Jan. 21,2017. ALL THE SPYING WAS CONDUCTED WHILE OBAMA WAS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF...not Mr. Trump.
Tis the problem with fascist democrats....they attempt to defend the indefensible by "hoping" others are not well informed. The true fascists demanded a congressional investigation to use as a stalling tactic and on DAY ONE...the evidence found points to the obvious corruption of the Obama Administration in using federal agencies as political tools, THE CIA, THE NSA, THE FBI, and the IRS.....and that evidence is moot because the POTUS was informed of the existing evidence before CONGRESS? Really? In the Trump administration the buck stops with the president but under the last administration the president is not in charge of anything to include the federal police agencies like the NSA, the CIA, the FBI....or the IRS/Treasury investigative agencies...so he gets a pass due to supposed IGNORANCE....the CLINTON DEFENSE?
There is one truth in your statement that's obvious. Fascist Democrats are clearly ignorant as hell in relation to the rule of law and facts in evidence.
The point being? There is no DEFENSE for the release of any information on Trump or his team....its illegal and unconstitutional as defined in the US RULE OF LAW recorded under the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Why? A mule is never used to push a plow.....when the information was released THAT WAS THE CRIME as no one to include Mr. Trump acting as President/Commander in Chief is GUILTY before DUE PROCESS can run its course.
The democrats pronounced GUILT void of any criminal evidence...and continue to suggest the spying was legal...which is moot, its not the spying....its the release of personal information obtained in the intercepted communications that was released into the public domain.....That's a crime and punishable with a 5 year prison sentence.
Example: Its not "illegal" to own a pit bull....but its illegal as hell to train that pit bull to attack on command and then release that animal into the public....with the excuse, I DID NOT TELL THAT DOG to attack and kill that child....NO...YOU JUST OPENED THE GATE AND YELLED...GO GET'EM. The animal just did what it was trained to do....by YOU.
Last edited by Ralph; 03-24-2017 at 04:56 AM.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ws_media_.html
I like this strategery
Stretch (03-24-2017)
Whether or not there is a Deep State is kind of pointless now, since an actual crime was committed by someone in the IC.
A serious crime, that warrants an investigation. Granted, there may be no Deep State but the crime is Deep State-ish, for whatever it's worth. But again, the only thing congress should interested in is getting to the bottom of it.
Let's see who was involved.
Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017
Stretch (03-24-2017)
Yes because Obama never lied, did he?
http://www.politifact.com/personalit...yruling/false/
Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
Stretch (03-24-2017)
And of course Ma Clinton never ever lied either, did she?
http://www.politifact.com/personalit...yruling/false/
Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
Stretch (03-24-2017)
The facts: Trump was correct, there was covert spying on him and his team...regardless of its legality Mr. Trump was correct. Fact: Whoever released that information was working for Barrack Obama at the time it was intercepted and Obama opened the door for these trained attack bulldogs that he placed into power with no consensus from the people whatsoever (his appointees)....how did he open the door? By executive fiat in "amending" EO number 12333. Yet he denies any culpability whatsoever? Really? He opened door for these bulldogs to be released into the public domain with no congressional oversight.....He might as well have said, "Sic balls boy's".
Indeed...its time, time for a full out "independent investigation" with Subpoena's forthcoming on everyone involved. Its time to place Obama's ass in the hot seat UNDER OATH. Let's make history. The only president in US history to be sent to federal prison for 5years.
Last edited by Ralph; 03-24-2017 at 06:55 AM.
Stretch (03-24-2017)
Trump, as usual lol, misstated the facts. But whether there was an actual literal wiretap actually literally directly ordered by Obama was made irrelevant by Nunes.
Comey didn't lie, because no one literally directly ordered anyone to wiretap or order surveillance on Trump or his campaign.
But Comey can still be an insidious kind of liar.
Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017
Stretch (03-24-2017)
Manafort will testify..that should quiet the calls for special prosecutor
Stretch (03-24-2017)
unes apologized to members of the committee at a closed-door meeting Thursday for having described the documents to Trump before sharing them with the panel. Democrats said, however, that he had not yet shown them any of the new evidence.
In a statement to reporters Wednesday and later at the White House, Nunes said that he had learned of “dozens” of classified reports that recounted communications between members of Trump’s transition team — and possibly the then-president-elect himself — and individuals who were legally targeted for government eavesdropping for counter-intelligence.
He said that the reports were widely shared within the U.S. government and that the identities of at least some Trump associates had been included in the reports, despite rules requiring that the names of Americans picked up by communications intercepts be kept confidential unless criminal activity is discussed or disclosure of the name is necessary to understand the intelligence.
Numerous transition officials could have communicated with foreign ambassadors or others in the United States who were under court-authorized surveillance for counter-intelligence purposes. If so, they could have inadvertently, but legally, been monitored by U.S. intelligence.
White House Chief of Staff Reince Preibus, White House aide Stephen Miller, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Trump’s adult children all played formal roles in Trump’s transition, along with many other Trump associates and former government officials. Nunes himself was a member of the transition executive committee.
It’s also possible that Trump transition officials were mentioned in U.S. intelligence reports even if no phone conversations, email or other communications involving those officials were actually intercepted by U.S. intelligence.
Foreign officials under surveillance might have mentioned the names of Trump aides or claimed to have had conversations with them. A claim of that sort might have been considered important enough to be included in an intelligence report, a former intelligence official said.
Senior intelligence officials can decide to include names or other identifying information of Americans in classified foreign intelligence reports if they believe that doing so is important for understanding the intelligence, or if it shows clear evidence of a potential crime.
This process, known as unmasking, could have happened with the Trump transition team. It’s unclear whether any names of Trump transition officials were unmasked in the documents Nunes referred to or whether their identities were masked, but obvious from how they were described.
Stretch (03-24-2017)
Bookmarks