The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims

BRUTALITOPS

on indefiniate mod break
Contributor
[h=1]The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer[/h][FONT=TIActuBetaMono-Regular_web]Glenn Greenwald
[/FONT]


IN JANUARY, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That warning was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction’s power even further.

This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”
Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing — eager — to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.

The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.

But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.

Beyond all that, there is no bigger favor that Trump opponents can do for him than attacking him with such lowly, shabby, obvious shams, recruiting large media outlets to lead the way. When it comes time to expose actual Trump corruption and criminality, who is going to believe the people and institutions who have demonstrated they are willing to endorse any assertions no matter how factually baseless, who deploy any journalistic tactic no matter how unreliable and removed from basic means of ensuring accuracy?
All of these toxic ingredients were on full display yesterday as the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document, compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents of Trump, accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts and salacious private conduct. The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so, too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts to undermine it.

FOR MONTHS, the CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump. In August, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell announced his endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed that “Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” The CIA and NSA director under George W. Bush, Gen. Michael Hayden, also endorsed Clinton, and went to the Washington Post to warn, in the week before the election, that “Donald Trump really does sound a lot like Vladimir Putin,” adding that Trump is “the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited.”

It is not hard to understand why the CIA preferred Clinton over Trump. Clinton was critical of Obama for restraining the CIA’s proxy war in Syria and was eager to expand that war, while Trump denounced it. Clinton clearly wanted a harder line than Obama took against the CIA’s long-standing foes in Moscow, while Trump wanted improved relations and greater cooperation. In general, Clinton defended and intended to extend the decadeslong international military order on which the CIA and Pentagon’s preeminence depends, while Trump — through a still-uncertain mix of instability and extremist conviction — posed a threat to it.

Whatever one’s views are on those debates, it is the democratic framework — the presidential election, the confirmation process, congressional leaders, judicial proceedings, citizen activism and protest, civil disobedience — that should determine how they are resolved. All of those policy disputes were debated out in the open; the public heard them; and Trump won. Nobody should crave the rule of Deep State overlords.

Yet craving Deep State rule is exactly what prominent Democratic operatives and media figures are doing. Any doubt about that is now dispelled. Just last week, Chuck Schumer issued a warning to Trump, telling Rachel Maddow that Trump was being “really dumb” by challenging the unelected intelligence community because of all the ways they possess to destroy those who dare to stand up to them

And last night, many Democrats openly embraced and celebrated what was, so plainly, an attempt by the Deep State to sabotage an elected official who had defied it: ironically, its own form of blackmail.


read more:
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/

Awesome article calling all you pathetic idiots out on your bullshit.
 
"Beyond all that, there is no bigger favor that Trump opponents can do for him than attacking him with such lowly, shabby, obvious shams, recruiting large media outlets to lead the way."

Bingo on that.
 
I say this to all the jarods and things and christies of this board... in your desperation to jump on any negative news to come out, you increasingly discredit yourselves, you increasingly become the boy who cried wolf, and eventually no one will believe you or any of the things you say. Our intelligence agencies are already being thoroughly discredited. You are doing a disservice to your own interests.
 
Give me a flippin' break. You guys hopped on every little piece of innuendo about Hillary & Obama. And guess what...it worked.

You got Nate Silver in your corner now? And I don't want to hear your pathetic whine that you didn't support the birther thing. Everything you post supports the guy who led it.
 
OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

Shut your pussy-ass mouth, slump.

You're gonna get this shit every fucking day from now on.

Don't like it?

Suck it, bitch.
 
And you didn't care at all about how discredited the FBI (a.k.a. "Trumpland") became.

Beam me up, Scotty. You guys are epic hypocrites. Ginormous.
 
And you didn't care at all about how discredited the FBI (a.k.a. "Trumpland") became.

Beam me up, Scotty. You guys are epic hypocrites. Ginormous.

Not only that, but they know it and they're proud of it.

The slimier they act and the more dishonest they are, the more they like themselves.

Scum of the earth.
 
Give me a flippin' break. You guys hopped on every little piece of innuendo about Hillary & Obama. And guess what...it worked.

You got Nate Silver in your corner now? And I don't want to hear your pathetic whine that you didn't support the birther thing. Everything you post supports the guy who led it.

1) the stuff about clinton was true. I never said anything that was untrue about her. Are you suggesting you are actively purposely spreading lies as a strategic tactic? That's the kind of person you want to be? Or is it that you are incapable of determining truth from reality (because you live in a bubble).. so when you are a caught being an idiot you just claim you did it on purpose for strategic reasons?

2) I don't know what you are talking about with re: to nate silver. Is he in my corner? Since when? Why are you bringing him up? I have always found 538 to be the top of political analysis, no matter what he said, and I've always been very consistent on that.

3) I never supported the birther stuff. Ever. I always called it out as bullshit on here. Many times. Go back and look. I don't believe in fake news or believing in delusions. If you want to become a birther conspiracy theorist analogue, then more power to you, all you end up doing is discrediting yourself.

How many times are you going to be proven wrong before you eat crow?
 
I say this to all the jarods and things and christies of this board... in your desperation to jump on any negative news to come out, you increasingly discredit yourselves, you increasingly become the boy who cried wolf, and eventually no one will believe you or any of the things you say. Our intelligence agencies are already being thoroughly discredited. You are doing a disservice to your own interests.

"in your desperation to jump on any negative news to come out, you increasingly discredit yourselves," now tell us again, where was President Obama born? Did the Clinton's murder Vince Foster? What's the story with that pizza shop in DC?

What goes around comes around
 
I say this to all the jarods and things and christies of this board... in your desperation to jump on any negative news to come out, you increasingly discredit yourselves, you increasingly become the boy who cried wolf, and eventually no one will believe you or any of the things you say. Our intelligence agencies are already being thoroughly discredited. You are doing a disservice to your own interests.

"in your desperation to jump on any negative news to come out, you increasingly discredit yourselves," now tell us again, where was President Obama born? Did the Clinton's murder Vince Foster? What's the story with that pizza shop in DC?

What goes around comes around
 
1) the stuff about clinton was true. I never said anything that was untrue about her.

2) I don't know what you are talking about with re: to nate silver. Is he in my corner? Since when? I have always found 538 to be the top of political analysis, no matter what he said, and I've always been very consistent on that.

3) I never supported the birther stuff. Ever. I always called it out as bullshit on here. Many times. Go back and look. I don't believe in fake news or believing in delusions. If you want to become a birther conspiracy theorist analogue, then more power to you, all you end up doing is discrediting yourself.

How many times are you going to be proven wrong before you eat crow?

Listen, twit - as I said, I don't care that you didn't support the birther movement. Every post on this board from you supports the messiah of that movement. So, same thing. Sorry.

You bought every little thing about Clinton, true or false. She still hasn't been convicted of anything. You're a fool.
 
Thingy supports fake news as long as it is against Trump, but disapproves if directed at Clinton and then he has the nerve to talk about hypocrisy.

I never supported the birthed crap, nor attacks on his wife.

So GFY. Sanctimonious prick.
 
Thingy supports fake news as long as it is against Trump, but disapproves if directed at Clinton and then he has the nerve to talk about hypocrisy.

I never supported the birthed crap, nor attacks on his wife.

So GFY. Sanctimonious prick.

Where did I "support fake news"? Cite it, or shut the fuck up.
 
"in your desperation to jump on any negative news to come out, you increasingly discredit yourselves," now tell us again, where was President Obama born? Did the Clinton's murder Vince Foster? What's the story with that pizza shop in DC?

What goes around comes around

find one post of mine where I supported birtherism, or pizzagate, or called obama a kenyan, or claimed clinton murdered vince foster. I'll wait.
 
1) the stuff about clinton was true. I never said anything that was untrue about her.

2) I don't know what you are talking about with re: to nate silver. Is he in my corner? Since when? I have always found 538 to be the top of political analysis, no matter what he said, and I've always been very consistent on that.

3) I never supported the birther stuff. Ever. I always called it out as bullshit on here. Many times. Go back and look. I don't believe in fake news or believing in delusions. If you want to become a birther conspiracy theorist analogue, then more power to you, all you end up doing is discrediting yourself.

How many times are you going to be proven wrong before you eat crow?

So you hold the birther movement in such disdain, but here you are, shilling your ass off for the biggest birther there ever was. The head of the birther movement. You claim he discredited himself, while you cheer him on.

No hypocrisy there at all, is there?
 
Back
Top