Our nation is divided. The Democrats in Congress rage against our president, Donald Trump. For years, they have dreamed up one silly excuse after another trying to impeach him. Instead of being embarrassed, they just continue trying to drum up charges. How do they get away with it? We are beset and besieged by enemies who have gifted us with Trojan horses.
Government-Run Education
Because our schools have become socialists institutions, parents have less and less control over the education of their children. Instead of responding to parents, our schools respond to myriad special interests. Instead of receiving anything might approach a classical education that includes their parents religious beliefs, the children in the public schools learn that everyone has their own truth. As Everett Piper says, “our culture seems to have lost its mind, lost its soul and lost its way” (See American education and intellectually bankrupt schools (washingtontimes.com)).
The Crony Capitalist Mass Media
The news media has always been partisan. What is different about today? Instead of local newspapers, we now have massive media organizations that owned by even more massive corporations. Because the government dominates our economy, these corporations have a huge economic incentive to ally themselves with government leaders. That makes the news organizations they own highly useful propagandists.
Consider that in Fiscal Year 2019 total government spending was estimated to be 7.68 trillion dollars (from here (usgovernmentspending.com)). How does that compare to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or the whole economic output of our country?
Viewed from a GDP perspective, total government spending was steady at about 33 percent GDP in the mid 2000s and then jumped, in the Great Recession, to 41 percent GDP. But in the subsequent economic recovery total government spending has steadily declined as a percent of GDP down to about 354 percent GDP in 2015. Estimated spending for 2019 was 36.1 percent GDP. (from here (usgovernmentspending.com))
The mass media exists to sell us things, to promote services to us, and to propagandize us. The mass media is composed of salespeople who are more concerned with connotation than denotation. They speak and write to produce an effect, a sale, not to convey the truth and understanding. They work for themselves and their masters, not us. That’s why repeating what they say is so often the same thing as repeating a lie. Nevertheless, because so many Americans don’t understand the consequences of a government-run school system and a crony capitalist owned news media, they repeat lots of lies.
Too Many Immigrants
Occasionally, even The York Times slips up and tells the truth. Here is such a gem How Voters Turned Virginia From Deep Red to Solid Blue (nytimes.com). Think about this. Then ask yourself a question. Why would we do this to ourselves? Where is the advantage?
“Guns, that is the most pressing issue for me,” said Vijay Katkuri, 38, a software engineer from southern India, explaining why he voted for a Democratic challenger in Tuesday’s elections. He was shopping for chicken at the Indian Spice Food Market. “There are lots of other issues, but you can only fix them if you are alive.”
Mr. Katkuri’s vote — the first of his life — helped flip a longtime Republican State Senate district and deliver the Virginia statehouse to the Democratic Party for the first time in a generation. It was a stunning political realignment for a southern state, and prompted days of prognosticating about President Trump’s own standing with suburban voters nationally in 2020. But while political leaders come and go, the deeper, more lasting force at work is demographics.
Once the heart of the confederacy, Virginia is now the land of Indian grocery stores, Korean churches and Diwali festivals. The state population has boomed — up by 38 percent since 1990, with the biggest growth in densely settled suburban areas like South Riding. One in 10 people eligible to vote in the state were born outside the United States, up from one in 28 in 1990. It is also significantly less white. In 1990, the census tracts that make up Mr. Katkuri’s Senate district were home to about 35,000 people — 91 percent of them white. Today, its population of 225,000 is just 64 percent white. (from here (nytimes.com))
Is it a great accomplishment to make our area significantly less white? Well, it seems that The New York Times is obsessed with race. You don’t like open borders? You must be a racist xenophobe. Yet consider what Victor Davis Hanson observes in this column, Victor Davis Hanson: Socialism guarantees failure and suffering – So why do so many Americans support it? (foxnews.com).
Massive immigration is changing the demography of the United States. The number of foreign-born U.S. residents and their children has been estimated at almost 60 million, or about 1 in 5 U.S. residents. Some 27 percent of California residents were born outside of America.
Many of these immigrants flee from poor areas of Latin America, Mexico, Africa and Asia that were wrecked by statism and socialism. Often, they arrive in the U.S. unaware of economic and political alternatives to state socialism.
When they reach the U.S. — often without marketable skills and unable to speak English — many assume that America will simply offer a far better version of the statism from which they fled. Consequently, many take for granted that government will provide them an array of social services, and they become supportive of progressive socialism. (from here (foxnews.com))
Are our schools and the crony capitalist news media even trying to teach new immigrants about the economic and political alternatives to state socialism? If new immigrants are being assimilated, does what they are being taught have any to do with the founding of this nation? What do you think?
Conclusion
Consider the gun control issue, supposedly a big deal. The primary reason people worry about it is that the crony capitalist news media propagandizes us. Consider this hysteria, There’s a gun for every American. But less than a third own guns (cnn.com). The CNN clowns even try to make a racial issue out of gun ownership, but they were disappointed to find the racial disparities were not large. What they don’t mention is that biggest massacres are government-run operations. After they made their victims give up the weapons, during the last century Fascist and Communist governments herded tens of millions into concentration camps and murdered them.
Where is the evidence that the vast majority of private gun owners in the United State have murderous ambitions of Fascists and Communists? When gun free zones are notorious for being killing zones, where is the evidence that gun control does more good than harm? Don’t abortion, illegal immigration, traffic jams, failing public schools, the opioid epidemic, and many other issues pose far greater problems than gun control. Doesn’t gun control need to be handled primarily as a mental health issue? Is not mental health a far bigger problem than gun control? Nevertheless, many considered gun control the big issue in our last election. Why? How can someone be pro-choice about killing babies and still eager to take away other people’s guns? Is this sort of emotional “logic” (see King Solomon Blog, “What have you got to lose?” (rudymartinka.com)) the product of a bad education and a lying mass media?
Are you a Conservative? Do you want to help regain control of Virginia? Half of the battle is just showing up. Here is what we must do to show up.
- Participate in politics. The Republican and Democrat parties have units in every county and city. Join your preferred party and help get Conservatives on the ballot. For example, I belong to the Prince William County Republican Committee.
- Vote and get out the vote. In every election, they are always lots of voters who did not vote. Turn out wins elections so we must motivate the apathetic, including that guy in the mirror.
- Do your homework. Learn how our government is supposed to work. We have a Christian heritage. The people who founded our nation created a federation of constitutional republics. They deliberately chose to divide government power among thousands of elected officials. Why such an unwieldy and complex structure? Do you know the answer? You should because that is what is being destroyed. So they can help us protect our rights, we need to help others learn what they should have been taught in school.
- Contribute financially. It costs money to run for office. Even a good candidate cannot win without some money. As it is, the crony capitalists — who spend money to win elections — are winning.
Citizen Tom 
Just curious. Y’all gonna watch or listen to the Impeachment Hearings?
No. But I will probably read the transcripts if/when they come out.
Absolutely. I am doing it now. You?
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/12/impeachment-inquiry-cheat-sheet-bill-taylor-past-testimony/
A good briefer for some background context for the impeachment hearings.
Yep. Historic.
@tsalmon
Been listening to when I can on CSPAN. So far I am amazed the Democrats went ahead with this.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup
This is writeup on the on Russiagate and the Ukraine controversy is excellent.
Taibbi is not a Trump supporter.
Obviously I do not share his opinion about Trump. But oh boy is he right about the underlying facts of the coup here.
@Liz
It is a bit scary. The RINOs in Congress cannot be trusted, and there are just too many reckless Democrats.
@Liz
Thanks!
“Trump stands accused of using the office of the presidency to advance political aims, in particular pressuring Ukraine to investigate potential campaign rival Joe Biden. He’s guilty, but the issue is how guilty, in comparison to his accusers.”
Liz,
You always amaze. The breadth of your reading is refreshing . I really enjoyed this article and the fascinating perspective, but I don’t think it really helps the Trump’s case that the career institutionalists are opposing corruption in the Oval Office. Assume that Trump truly is corrupt (as Taibbi does), and another way to look at this is that career institutionalists are simply trying to defend democracy from corruption and protect the rule of law.
Take it from a military perspective. Is it mutiny if, faced by actual and potential illegal acts by the Captain, the inferior officers on a Navy ship do one or more of the following:
(1) Try to talk their Captain out of the illegal act,
(2) ignores the illegal order and hope the Captain forgets about it,
(3) simply refuses to carry out the order and resigns or gets fired,
(4) anonymously reports the corruption to NCIS, and/or
(5) comes forward to testify to a an official board of enquiry about the corruption?
As the Mueller Report points out, the only thing that prevented Mueller from reporting more illegal acts by Trump was because his subordinates did not do what Trump asked him to do.
Like Taibbi, I am deeply disturbed by the fact that our institutions of state seem to wish to reject Trump like he is self serving cancer on our democratic institutions from national security to fair elections to the Rule of Law. No doubt, many of the actors on both sides are in it for their own cynical political ambitions or out of a fanatic desire to advance one ideology or another and damn to cost to our constitutional republic. However, this does not really seem to be the case for most of those who ultimately have tried to manage Trump’s corrupt instincts or have come forward to report what they honestly see as detrimental to the country and it’s institutions. Most of those who will testify at the Hearing over the next few days are apolitical career civil servants who, in many cases, will have their careers irreparably damaged by their coming forward. This is not a coup – it is the Constitution.
@tsalmon
You expect the swamp to like Trump. Frankly, all you are saying is you don’t like Trump and people you think are experts don’t like Trump. Trump was not elected to please either you or those experts. He was elected to fix the mess the swamp creatures have made.
As I said I like Trump fine. I found him mildly entertaining when he used to come on Howard Stern’s radio show to brag about his affairs and his sexual prowess. I found him mildly entertaining when he was an extravagant New York liberal Democrat who stroked his ego by buying, begging or bashing his way into benefits and balls to ingratiate himself with the liberal elite. Although I never watched the show or his fake wrestling matches or his beauty pageants, I vaguely admired his talents at making a show out of pure human vice and foolishness, rhinestone glitz and preposterousness. Finally, I have to give it to Trump that he managed to leverage his bad boy image as an alligator in the corrupt New York realty swamp and con Republican evangelical conservatives into thinking he is one of them, indeed their great leader. Likable? He’s is amazing at his ability to con us into liking him.
I hope you watched the hearings. The exposure that Trump has turned his previous swamp monster expertise into a whole new level of political swamp denizenship amazing.
@tsalmon
Frankly, I don’t care how you feel about Trump. Your feelings about Trump have become boringly devoid of substance and meaningless. Why do your waste your time finding new ways to tell us how much you hate the man? Don’t you know that brevity is the soul of wit?
All the stupid hearings are doing is demonstrating that impeachment is ultimately a political act, especially when we elect men and women who have no honor and conduct show trials.
One of the Republican congressman asked the star witnesses what Trump had done that was impeachable. They refused to answer the question. Except to tell us how much Democrats hate Trump, nobody knows exactly what Schiff’s investigation is about?
Since Trump released the transcript of his phone call with the leader of Ukraine, Schiff had to hide his so-called whistleblower. That clown (everyone knows his name) is more likely to have firsthand testimony against Schiff than Trump.
What do I care about? Through the mass media you associate with too many unsavory people. We become what we fill our minds with. If anything, political and religious pornography is worse than sexual pornography.
Tom,
The fact that you feel the need to attack credibility and integrity (including mine) rather than defend your lifelong swamp monster on his own record and the simple facts shows a certain desperation, don’t you think brother?
As you know, we build habits of virtue through a lifetime of muscle memory achieved through practice. Love Trump or hate him, you can’t really be surprised that, after a lifetime of promoting greed and vice, Trump’s default reaction in every case while in office is toward corruption for his own benefit regardless of the price to our bipartisan national security policy and our national interests.
Two honorable public servants, who actually built up an impeccable record of public service, provided a methodical factual case that, at the expense of national security, Trump used congressionally approved funds to extort an announcement of sham investigations from a foreign ally so that he could use this fake dirt against his political opponents. That simply happened. Republicans can blow smoke and disparage the honor of their betters, but they just can’t change those apparent facts.
At some point, Republicans will be forced to admit those obvious facts and then cling to the excuse that, yep, Trump did it, but claim somehow that it’s not impeachable behavior. So why don’t we just cut to the chase and deal with that rather than trying to paint me either a gullible fool somehow lacking in your esteemed level of knowledge and information or that I somehow am below you in your practice of basic integrity, all because I believe what is simply right before my eyes.
@tsalmon
I read the transcript of the phone call. There is nothing impeachable. Schiff lied about it.
I am tired of the hypocrisy. Three years of this crap is enough. When you thought Clinton would win, you hypocrites demanded Trump accept the election results in advance. Meanwhile, you ran a candidate who rigged the primary elections. At what point do you adhere to the standards of plain, ordinary, common decency?
The only time Democrats ever care about impeccable records of public service is when they want us to believe BS. Look what they did to Gen Michael Flynn.
Those two men with impeccable record of public service were asked point blank what Trump did wrong, and they refused to answer. They want someone else to cast the first stone, and you are no different. You know you are being a hypocrite.
Why I am supposed to endlessly defend the people I support? You don’t do it. You just find endless excuses to spew ridicule. If that is your idea of an impeccable record of public service, God help you.
Trump won. Grow up and get over it.
Of course Trump won… and he will lose… one way or the other, before the next year ends. But in whatever way he ends… things are going to get a lot worse.
@Doug
How? What are you going to do, beat up his voters and scare them away from the polls? You are already trying to excuse violence. If some Antifa fanatic took a baseball bat to me, would it not be my fault since I dare to defend Trump?
You are confusing “condoning” with using “common sense”. Once in a while I will share some post I make or comments I deposit on other blogs… with my GF of 18 years now, and she constantly cautions me with the “Are you sure no one is going to track you down and come here to burn the house down?” Of course she’s the resident technology-hater, believes Trump pays off everyone (even I don’t believe that one; “He just pays the hookers, dear.”), and watches those Ancient Alien conspiracy shows. Point being… anyone expressing themselves in public should presume some risk and thereby in making that presumption, they assume some moral responsibility knowing the potential consequences. Has nothing at all to do with Antifa, neo-Nazis, or anything else. Why you so hung up on this concept?
As for Trump losing…. maybe now is a good time to flip on your TV and watch a bit of history unfold.
I’m sure you already read my post here…
https://findingpoliticalsanity.com/my-answer-to-the-question-will-trump-be-removed-from-office/
I could be wrong yet again.
@Doug
I am sick of debating Trump with you too. When you started condoning violence, there was nothing else to say.
“I read the transcript of the phone call. There is nothing impeachable. Schiff lied about it.”
I read the transcript of the call too. In connection with military aid to Ukraine, Trump responded that the new Ukraine President would have to do Trump “a favor”. Trump said those favors were:
(1) That Ukraine would have to launch investigations into an accusation that Trumps most likely and most substantial Democratic opponent at that time, Joe Biden, did not aggressively pursue U.S. foreign policy against Ukrainian corruption when he was tasked with that bipartisan diplomatic policy as Vice President. This accusation was categorically denied by Mr. Kent at the Hearing as spurious.
(2) That Ukraine investigate debunked and wild conspiracy theories about Crowdstrike and that the DNC server was somehow hiding somewhere in Ukraine. The Ukrainians doing this would give would help Trump in his standard election strategy by legitimizing false trumped up conspiracy theories.
Add this ask of the Ukrainian President on the phone call to the witness testimony so far that Congressionally approved U.S. military aid was being illegally withheld by Trump unless these politically motivated investigations were launched, and the factual truth of impeachable corrupt intent, extortion and bribery by Trump becomes obvious.
“I am tired of the hypocrisy. Three years of this crap is enough. When you thought Clinton would win, you hypocrites demanded Trump accept the election results in advance. Meanwhile, you ran a candidate who rigged the primary elections. At what point do you adhere to the standards of plain, ordinary, common decency?”
I “ran a candidate”? Thanks for the amazing super powers, but in all humility, I make no claim to dominate the selection of either political party’s candidates. I don’t even think I voted for Clinton in the state primaries, but, yes it was clear from the emails that she was the establishment candidate. You seem to conveniently forget, however, that without the Russians illegally hacking and releasing to Wikileaks just the embarrassing emails you complain about, information that it appears that the Trump campaign knew about and coordinated with Wikileaks to release (see Steve Bannon’s grand jury testimony and testimony at the Stone trial), then you would not even know about it. So based on your own logic Trumped rigged the general election? Don’t forget, Trump lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes and only won the electoral college by less than 80,000 votes in three states. Absent Russian help, and absent Trump’s illegal campaign law violations when he paid off porn stars to suppress voters from knowing that he also cheated on his current First Lady (also a former soft porn star), Trump probably would have lost the election. it is not preposterous to say that Trump won by a fraud upon the American people.
As for three years of crap, how long did the Republicans investigate Clinton and on how many fronts? And all without finding anything as anywhere near as damaging as this betrayal of American security interests for his own political gain.
“The only time Democrats ever care about impeccable records of public service is when they want us to believe BS. Look what they did to Gen Michael Flynn.”
So are you saying the two witnesses’ records are not impeccable? Flynn confessed to a felony and is still awaiting sentencing. He has been promised leniency if he cooperates in turning on others for crimes he too committed. The judge has complained that Flynn is getting off too easy and has demanded proof of sufficient cooperation.
By comparison, and unlike Cadet Bonespur, Ambassador Taylor graduated 5th in his class at Westpoint at the height of the Vietnam War. He could have thus chosen any cushy assignment. but instead he asked to be an infantry rifleman. He served in combat in Viet Nam and was awarded, among other decorations, the Bronze Star and an Air Medal with a “V” for Valor. After that, he went on to ask what more he could do for his country and has served in government in numerous positions of distinction for more than 40 years, including previously under a Republican President as Ambassador of Ukraine.
Taylor was asked by Trump’s Secretary of State to go back to Ukraine after Trump unceremoniously fired the current career Ambassador based on ridiculous allegations trumped up by Trump’s attorney to get her out of the way because she would not play in the corrupt “drug deal” (as Bolton called it) that Gulianni and his recently indicted cronies wanted.
With his talent, skills and experience, Taylor could have made millions of dollars in the private sector, but he chose to serve his country.
“Those two men with impeccable record of public service were asked point blank what Trump did wrong, and they refused to answer.”
Not exactly true if you watched all the testimony. At one point Taylor was asked if exactly what he and the other witnesses have testified that Trump did was “wrong” and he responded in the affirmative and explained why. What both witnesses refused to do was decide if Trump should be indicted or impeached. They said that that was not their job.
“They want someone else to cast the first stone, and you are no different. You know you are being a hypocrite”
They did not cast stones. They said what they knew to have happened. Casting a stone is by definition to judge and punish. Constitutionally, that was not the witnesses job – that was up to Congress. And that’s what they both said. Thanks for calling me a hypocrite though. I would say it takes one to know one, but I have enough faith in your integrity to think that you actually believe the nonsense you say is right. Too bad you are unable to give me the same benefit of the doubt.
“Why I am supposed to endlessly defend the people I support? You don’t do it. You just find endless excuses to spew ridicule. If that is your idea of an impeccable record of public service, God help you.”
If you are supporting a criminal and an incompetent, then don’t you think that you should have to defend that? I don’t claim any political affiliation, don’t work for a political party and simply vote for whoever I think is the best candidate in any given election where I am allowed to vote. As such, I have voted for Republicans, Democrats and Independents over the years. You, on the other hand, claim to be a Republican, are active in the Republican Party and run two blogs promoting your political views and/or your candidates while condemning the other political party and their candidates. If you don’t want to defend the candidates that you support, aren’t you in the wrong business here? If you’re tired of defending the corruption of corrupt people, maybe you ought to just stop supporting it and them.
Besides, I like to think that I’m spewing facts. If the facts are not good for Trump, then I can’t help it if the truth hurts.;-)
“Trump won. Grow up and get over it.”
This is exactly what “Acting” Chief of Staff Mulvaney said, right after he admitted that Trump used military aid to extort political dirt on his opponents from Ukraine. God help us indeed.
Wrote a long response and it disappeared when I posted it. Oh well.
“Those two men with impeccable record of public service were asked point blank what Trump did wrong, and they refused to answer. They want someone else to cast the first stone, and you are no different. You know you are being a hypocrite.
“Why I am supposed to endlessly defend the people I support? You don’t do it. You just find endless excuses to spew ridicule. If that is your idea of an impeccable record of public service, God help you.”
You don’t seem to have watched the Hearing. Both men were very clear about why it was “wrong” as a matter of foriegn policy and national security to do what Trump did. Ambassador Taylor specifically explained what was “wrong” and why.
God help us all with such a president.
@tsalmon
Neither of those guys had met Trump. They had not listened to his conversations with the leader of the Ukraine. Is hearsay evidence is sufficient evidence sufficient for an impeachment?
Why shouldn’t the Trump administration investigate evidence of American corruption in the Ukraine? Because Democrats are having a cow?
Your long response went into the spam bucket. If someone else wants to “debate” Trump with you, they can. I am sick of it.
Think I’ve brought this up before. One way to test if your world view is accurate is to see how often your predictions come true. If they never seem to come true, it’s quite likely your world view is false. I have lost track of the number of predictions made that have turned out not to be true. The economy was supposed to dive off a cliff (now it’s all due to Obama’s greatness that didn’t manifest for some reason until he was out of office…wonder how long they’re going to milk that turnip). Terrorism was supposed to increase. Trade war was supposed to break us. Unemployment (particularly for minorities) was supposed to skyrocket record low minority unemployment. North Korea was going to nuke us. Voting down wealth transfers for Global Warming Alarmism was supposed to result in more carbon emissions but America exceeded the targets due to the progression of technology rather than corrupt financial obligation. The list goes on. Then we get to:
“Meuller is Trump’s worst nightmare”, “Flynn made a plea bargain which means Trump is guilty, and Flynn is guilty as sin of high crimes…don’t you know what a plea bargain means?!?” et al.
Manafort, the guy who seems to be the most “guilty” had worked in politics for years. He was a campaign advisor to Ford, Reagan, Bob Dole and Bush…he just wasn’t being targeted and wire tapped back then. Anyone want to guess what this level of scrutiny of the Clinton campaign would uncover about their longstanding campaign advisors?
But it’s all justified eh? Because those people want what’s best for America.
For a couple of years, the most important issue to congress, the DOJ, special councils, leftist talking heads, and the media was if American leadership was conspiring with a foreign government for personal gain… and the answer after a long and expensive and exhaustive investigation was: No.
However, hard evidence exists that this DID happen… with the previous administration… and suddenly it is out of bounds and illegal if somebody wants to look into it. Because these folks have our best interest in mind eh?
Apparently your “hard evidence” is not hard enough for anyone to take any action. In fact.. what ever happened to the investigate-the-investigators Barr is allegedly pursuing? Seems if there was something there he would have found it by now. It’s not all that difficult given Mueller did most of the work. I don’t see anyone scurrying for cover over it.
Ohh.. it’s that pesky Deep State thing! Well.. the Trump/Conservatives better hurry up because Trump isn’t likely to last past 2020 one way or the other.
Per civli servants,
This guy worked for the FBI for 25 years:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-michael-flynn-smoking-gun-fbi-headquarters-altered-interview-summary
This guy worked for the State Department for over thirty years:
https://www.thediplomad.com/2019/11/impeachment-hearings-new-whine-in-old.html
In fact.. what ever happened to the investigate-the-investigators Barr is allegedly pursuing? Seems if there was something there he would have found it by now.
Mueller had access to information from a foreign operative (paid for by the DNC), as well as secret wiretaps (authorized from information gleaned from the aforementioned foreign operative). It took him two years and he found nothing. But Barr should be done after a few months?
Imagine if FOX news cited Anonymous Sources almost exclusively for all its information in each news piece. But….believe them, it’s a very very important high level source. Also a list of “thousands of lies” which when a few are tracked obviously weren’t lies…but hey! There must be some in there.
Would you even bother to respond to that?
Or would you start to doubt the sanity of people citing them as a source?
Uhh.. Mueller’s investigation was far broader than anything Barr was going after. After all.. all Barr needed to do was prove some sort of conspiracy or sinister bias on the players that set off the Mueller investigation. Barr hasn’t got much time left.
This idea of “anonymous sources”.. if the news reports that “Anonymous sources are reporting that Trump picks his nose during his daily intel briefs.” Ok.. if the story ends up not being true then whatever news outlet reported that breaking news has a credibility issue to work out. Basically it’s up to the viewer/consumer of that breaking news to make some initial judgement on the credibility of what they are listening to or watching. If they trust the news reporting then fine. But see, there’s this propensity for Trumpian-trained Conservatives to want to know identities of anonymous sources for the sole purpose of personal demonizing and behind-the-scenes retribution if possible… and forget the fact that he engages in nose picking during his intel briefs. Same thing with the Whistleblower identity.
Barr’s investigation has uncovered enough evidence to launch a criminal investigation.
An excerpt from the former FBI agent’s article I linked to above. Regarding Barr’s investigation. Not “anonymous sources” nor weird rumors about pee pee sheets, just fact:
“But as we anxiously await the expected reports, there recently appeared some fairly explosive allegations into potential investigator misconduct that have not received the attention they deserve. With her filing of a blistering Motion to Compel against federal prosecutors in the Michael Flynn case just made public, Sidney Powell has upended my adherence to Hanlon’s Razor. Powell is the attorney for former national security adviser and retired Army Lt. Gen. Flynn, who pled guilty to one count of lying to FBI agents during the special counsel investigation. Powell’s motion seeks to unravel a case many feel was biased from its inception.
One of the most damning charges contained within Powell’s 37-page court brief is that Page, the DOJ lawyer assigned to the office of then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, may have materially altered Flynn’s interview FD-302, which was drafted by Strzok. FBI agents transfer handwritten interview notes onto a formal testimonial document, FD-302, within five days of conducting an interview, while recollections are still fresh.
It is unheard of for someone not actually on the interview itself to materially alter an FD-302. As an FBI agent, no one in my chain of command ever directed me to alter consequential wording. And as a longtime FBI supervisor, I never ever directed an agent to recollect something different from what they discerned during an interview. Returning a 302 for errors in grammar, punctuation, or syntax is appropriate. This occurs before the document is ultimately uploaded to a particular file, conjoined with the original interview notes which are safely secured inside a 1-A envelope, and secured as part of evidence at trial.
With this in mind, this related text message exchange from Strzok to Page dated Feb. 10, 2017, nauseated me:
“I made your edits and sent them to Joe. I also emailed you an updated 302. I’m not asking you to edit it this weekend, I just wanted to send it to you.”
Powell charges that Page directed Strzok to alter his Flynn interview 302. As in most instances in life, words matter. The change in wording was instrumental in moving Flynn from a target to a subject. One recalls how critical wording was in the FBI’s decision not to argue that DOJ charge Hillary Clinton with a crime in the private email server investigation. Comey elected not to use “gross negligence” to characterize Clinton’s actions — which would have been the required language in the mishandling of classified information statute — and instead settled upon the more benign and non-indictable “extreme carelessness.”
Later, it was determined that none other than Strzok was the impetus behind the recrafting of Comey’s words.”
Ex-FBI agent?? (better credibility just claiming ‘anonymous source’)
Hey.. if there’s wrong-doing then go for it and see where the trial goes. I’m all for that. But as we both know, any legal shinanigans originating from the Trump administration is generally aimed to obstruct or distract.
But see, there’s this propensity for Trumpian-trained Conservatives to want to know identities of anonymous sources for the sole purpose of personal demonizing and behind-the-scenes retribution if possible…
Right. Because no liberal would want to know the identity of said individual.
The whistleblower’s identity was “protected” to protect the media, not the whistleblower. Now that his identity has been revealed that much could not be more obvious. He isn’t the high level official they touted him to be, and their credibility is shot.
Depends all on public perception.
Ex-FBI agent?? (better credibility just claiming ‘anonymous source’)
So it is your opinion that a source one could check the credibility of…as one can the author here, James Gagliano. Is less credible than an unnamed source (this after an anonymous source was proven false)? As long as you agree with it, of course…
Thank you.
That pretty much says it all.
For those interested:
https://ctc.usma.edu/a-view-from-the-ct-foxhole-james-a-gagliano-former-fbi-hostage-rescue-team-counterterrorist-operator/
“Neither of those guys had met Trump. They had not listened to his conversations with the leader of the Ukraine. Is hearsay evidence is sufficient evidence sufficient for an impeachment?”
Everybody in my Evidence law school class thought it was confusingly esoteric, but just I love the rules of evidence. They have a wonderful motivational logic and common law history that evolved their probative value in the procedural crucibles of justice where they are practiced.
First if all, constitutional impeachment is not a trial and there is nothing that requires the modern rules of trial evidence during an impeachment hearing in the House. If impeachment is akin to anything, it would be an indictment proceeding. The evidentiary standards for an indictment proceeding do not require anywhere near the same standards of evidence nor same the standard of proof as a trial on guilt or innocence. The actual trial will be held in the Senate.
Second of all, the prisons are slap full of people convicted on hearsay evidence. That’s because hearsay, in actual practice, is driven by the exceptions more than in the rule itself.
By legal definition, hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (I’ll let you parse that out for a minute).
The basic idea is that the jury should be able to judge the voracity of witness evidence in court under direct and cross examination by the attorneys rather than just accept the statement second hand from the witness. You should realize, however, that in the rules of evidence there exist about 30 exceptions to the hearsay rule, each with its own evidentiary rational for allowance and acceptable indicia of probative value.
For example, one exception is an admission against interest. Let’s say Joe tells the witness that he and Bill robbed the bank, and the witness testifies in court as to what she heardJoe say. This is hearsay testimony because it is an out of court statement by Joe, offered in court by the witness instead of Joe and it is being used to prove Joe’s guilt. It is also an admissible exception in a trial against either Joe or Bill because it meets the criteria for an admission by Joe that he and Bill committed the crime for which the trial is being held.
In the impeachment hearing, Ambassador Sondland tells Ambassador Taylor that Trump told him that they were going to illegally withhold taxpayer paid military aid until Ukrainians bribe Trump with dirt on Trump’s political enemies. This is hearsay, but as a admission against both Sondland’s and Trump’s interests, it is admissible hearsay under this exception, as well as other exceptions.
Hearsay can also be admissible if the guilty party has taken steps to make sure that the actual witness to the crime deposed earlier does not appear in court, because the defendant killed, threatened or bribed that witness so that she doesn’t appear (or in Trump’s case, ordering them not to appear). This is a very narrow exception and rarely used, but the idea is not to reward the defendant for his own illegal attempts to thwart justice.
Finally, there is a thing called admissible non-hearsay.. This could be a situation where the witness said something out of court, but then changes his story. Under the rules of evidence, the earlier out of court statement can be used to either refresh the witness’s recollection or to impeach the witnesses current change in testimony with his original testimony (“were you lying then or are you lying now”). The reason it is “non-hearsay” is because it is not being used “to prove the truth of the matter asserted”, but for another acceptable evidentiary purpose.
Because the Republican Congressmen who are lawyers know that hearsay is perfectly admissible at an impeachment hearing (the Nixon and Clinton impeachment hearings were full of hearsay) and because they also know that, even in trial proceeding, the evidence would be equally admissible under either hearsay exceptions or the non-hearsay rules, they are just demagoguing people like you who sense a excuse to get a guilty Trump off on a technicality, but have no clue how the system actually works.
“Why shouldn’t the Trump administration investigate evidence of American corruption in the Ukraine?”
The Trump “administration” certainly can investigate American corruption anywhere, but countries that follow the Rule of Law have procedures for doing this under The Rule of Law. If you listened to Mr. Kent at the Hearing, then you would have learned that corrupt countries trump up criminal investigations on their political opponents and use corrupt police, prosecutors and court systems to suppress, punish and eliminate political opposition. Ukraine has done all of this in the past, but the new Ukrainian administration, with our help, is desperately trying set up the Rule of Law in their country.
US policy in Ukraine for the past 10 years has been to try to get the Ukrainians to stop punishing political opponents and to follow the Rule of Law. Tax payer aid is simply wasted if it is squandered on corruption so we have a national interest in anti-corruption initiatives. Mr. Kent actually gave an excellent history lesson and explanation of this US policy. By President Trump and his personal lawyer asking the Ukrainians act corruptly so as to dig up fake dirt on Trump’s political opposition, Trump was actually, not only acting corruptly and in violation of the Rule of Law in our country, he was encouraging a new Ukrainian government to return to the old ways in violation of ongoing US foreign anticorruption programs in Ukraine and in violation of our national security interests.
There are numerous ways that Trump’s “administration” could have investigated actual corruption in Ukraine, but Trump did not want or need an actual Rule of Law type investigation (many of which have already been carried out or were currently being carried out). Instead, what Trump wanted was a sham announcement by the Ukrainian President of an investigation so that he could use the faux conspiracy theories and slanderous accusations against his political opposition on the campaign trail and at his rallies so as to keep his base’s emotions enflamed and cast doubt about his opponent’s credibility among independent voters. This is Trumpist demagoguery exemplified. Trump simply does not know how to not cheat. It’s like asking a water moccasin not to bite you even if he doesn’t have to. It’s in his nature.
One of the revelations of the Trump experience has been that many of his most ardent devotees (not all) have been attracted (sometimes subliminal, sometimes not) to that authoritarian style (or perception of) of leadership. Not unlike that of a (somewhat) benevolent king. There’s a comfort level many folks find in those Type A’s (or think they are Type A) that people like to follow. So goes the old adage that some can lead and others prefer to follow. Neither is a right or wrong as it’s a lifestyle preference based on establishing personal priorities.within given situations. Honestly.. many Americans like the idea that Trump just does it his own way and to hell with tradition and Constitutional limitations.. he’s in charge and the Constitution says he can do any damn thing he wants to do. For his admirers he is a change agent. Strangely, liking Trump for this reason or not doesn’t have a lot to do with intelligence level or educational level. Any right or wrong of it all is blurred when compared to his method of getting his campaign promises carried out… which is the important thing, even if it’s only a perceived improvement not totally real). If the media makes a stink about it..and Liberals are screaming foul… then Trump is doing good things for the country. Crazy way to measure accomplishment (perceived or not).. but we are living in crazy times.
@Doug
What gobblety-gook! So Trump’s crime is that his supporters are insane. Yep! Constitutional Conservatives don’t grasp the fact that the Constitution only means whatever Trump-haters find it convenient to believe from moment-to-moment.
Trump supporters are just so dumb and naive! Next thing you know never-Trump bureaucrats, our natural and appropriate rulers, will wear Trump masks and herd us docile souls into cattle yards instead of concentration camps. Cooking us and eating us would be so much more environmentally sensitive than merely executing us.
Be careful! Those impeccable souls may find you tasty too, and it is so traditional for such elites to rule.
@tsalmon
Now you are trying to defend using hearsay evidence to judge motivation? And you are a lawyer? I just don’t care anymore. All you are doing is digging in your heels and getting more stupid.
Been following the back and forth between Doug and Liz. Not much to add except to agree with a very good point Doug made.
News sources have a bias just as journalists have bias. The WSJ and the NYT have completely different political biases. What they have in common is that they both protect their factual credibility. Why? Well, l think there are obvious altruistic reasons of journalistic ethics for doing this. Journalists and media sources around the world risk their lives every day just to get the truth out. However, there also have been good pecuniary reasons for protecting one’s credibility for factual truthfulness. I’m not sure that that is as economically true as it used to be.
What’s bad right now isn’t that there are so many news sources that tell lies and just don’t care. What’s bad is that so many people actually want to be lied to and just don’t care that they are being lied to as long as they like the lies. What’s bad is that there are so many people out there that don’t want to see the truth, don’t want to accept even obvious facts as facts.
This change in the economics of news consumership has made it highly lucrative for the rise of niche media that tells lies and ignores facts without any moral retribution and without any negative pecuniary consequences. Just the opposite, they are thriving
As a result of shrinking market share, credible news sources are dying off or they have had to adapt. We all blame the media, but ultimately the reason why we are seeing this happen is driven by consumers as much as by the media. The media is reacting to consumer demand. We have mostly ourselves to blame.
I don’t really see a solution to this. Individually, whether liberals, conservatives or moderates, we can only make sure what we consume is credible. For example, when I see something on the internet that sounds too good or too bad to be true, I check the source and wait to make a judgement. Unfortunately a lie can travel around the world five times before the truth wakes up.
Maybe there will be a backlash when we get tired of the unreality of it all. As Liz says, maybe this will happen when the predictions we base on our unreality on continues to fail us enough. Given what I read here and see on the most extreme liberal news sources, I doubt that will happen any time soon.
Tom and I just watched a hearing where two highly credible witnesses testified, and yet we heard and saw two completely different hearings. And we are both basically ethical, law abiding citizens of above average education and reading skills. What does that mean? I don’t know, but it seems to mean that ideology is driving our reality faster than reason, knowledge and empirical perception can create it. This is probably nothing new in the human dilemma, except now our delusions can destroy us so much more efficiently than they could when we were just superstitious stone age primitives or Dark Ages lords and peasants.
“Now you are trying to defend using hearsay evidence to judge motivation? And you are a lawyer?”
I’m not sure what you are asking. If it is within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, then hearsay is admissible to prove each and every element of the charges, including intent and motivation. The question for the juror isn’t admissibility – hearsay is absolutely admissible under such an exception. The issue for the trier of fact instead is credibility. Was the witness credible? Did cross examination impeach the witness’ credibility (by showing other false statements for example)? Is the witness’ testimony corroborated by other evidence and/or witness testimony?
If you don’t understand, I get it. Hearsay and it’s exceptions take up most of a semester in law school. I’m kind of nerding out here because I love this stuff. Like many complex matters of law, it this is not intuitive, but takes study and contemplation. Most people don’t know or care about the technicalities of the rules of evidence – they just know when things add up or they don’t. However, if you are trying to say that I don’t know what I’m talking about or I’m lying, then you should be able to site some better authority. I’ve actually tried cases based on these rules.
What I found interesting about the Republican attorney at the Hearing was that he never really touched the credibility of the witnesses or impeached any of the basic facts they presented, that even though he knew everything they were going to say before they said it and he had plenty of time to prepare. The Republican attorney was a complete fail as a defense attorney (although it does not help that his client is guilty as sin). My favorite question was when he asked Taylor something to the effect of whether Trump’s irregular diplomacy channels could have been worse and everyone, including Taylor started laughing. I guess anything can be worse, even Trump’s corruption.
“I just don’t care anymore. All you are doing is digging in your heels and getting more stupid.”
Digging in? I’m making a legal argument based on evidentiary rules every third year law student is familiar with. What would be stupid is to dismiss truth and knowledge because it does not fit your magical thinking. No, I take that back. That’s unfair to stupid people. They are smart enough not to do that.
Anyway, I take that last as an admission that, if you can’t be allowed to win, you just don’t want to play anymore. 🙂
@tsalmon
Your impeccable witnesses are just the tale end of a whisper chain.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers
The Obama administration insisted Ukraine investigated the company Trump wants investigated. Then, when that company appointed Hunter Biden to its board, Biden bragged about getting the investigation called off. That’s on video. Further, one of your two impeccable witnesses asked to have the investigation restarted. He was then ignored. He also said the State Department would have nothing to with that company, but that did not stop the Biden’s.
But you are not listening to hearsay, just a crony capitalist news media.
By President Trump and his personal lawyer asking the Ukrainians act corruptly so as to dig up fake dirt on Trump’s political opposition,
The above is a fabrication. The text of the phone call was released immediately and it neither states nor implies what you are saying above. The president had this conversation with many people in the room.
Trump was actually, not only acting corruptly and in violation of the Rule of Law in our country, he was encouraging a new Ukrainian government to return to the old ways in violation of ongoing US foreign anticorruption programs in Ukraine and in violation of our national security interests.
What is the difference between the president asking a foreign leader directly (in a room full of people, as a matter of public record) and telling someone else to do it for him?
Tom,
Did you even listen to the impeccable witnesses? They refuted all the lies and pablum that you are being spoon fed by the Alt Right media. Your fearless leader is the king of nepotism and family self dealing. How can your holier-than-thou acceptance of Trump’s wish to smear Joe Biden with extorted investigations in Ukraine be anything be laughable? Seriously?
Liz,
That supposed crowded room was aghast. His own NSC officials took it to their legal experts and the White House doctored the transcript and shoved it into a SCI server to keep anyone else from seeing it. So after the whistle blower blew his/her whistle, then Trump releases it…does a smoking gun not smoke anymore if you release the picture of it? Does Emperor Trump suddenly grow clothes when he shows up naked as a Jaybird?
Honestly, I think it is possible that in Trump’s mind, extorting fake dirt on the political opposition is just we he does. Corruption is his impulse. He has no moral compass so to him the call was “perfect” (meaning perfectly corrupt).
You both could try to make these fantasies up in a vacuum, but one after another witnesses within Trump’s own administration, his own appointees or appointees of his appointees, keep coming forward to confirm Trump’s corruption and incompetence. Even Ambassador Sondland, who actually talked to Trump (apparently on open phone in a Ukrainian Restaurant) has had to change his testimony to confirm that, yes, Trump wanted trumped up investigations specifically of his political opposition in exchange for releasing the military aid.
I just wonder how long you can keep this delusion up before you have to face the reality of it. Just watch the whole impeachment hearing. Listen to the facts as they are presented by the witnesses and corroborated by other witnesses. Don’t read the spin by either side. Watch and listen yourself.
That supposed crowded room was aghast. His own NSC officials took it to their legal experts and the White House doctored the transcript and shoved it into a SCI server to keep anyone else from seeing it.
I’m going to have to ask you for some link to back your claims. From what I’ve read it is standard to put transcripts in SCI servers and the transcript was not “doctored” in any significant way (no more than the standard…Lt colonel Vindman attested to its accuracy and stated he thought the actual name of a company was mentioned rather than the word “company”, but he didn’t think the difference was significant or intentionally deceptive).
We’ll start there. I do not have time to watch the entire hearing and flesh out what you are talking about here, but surely if what you state, just this part above, is correct, you can point to where it states as much, just outright?
For clarity, I’m asking for some sort of proof that what happened with this phone call transcript was unusual in some way that it was treated. The SCI is obviously not unusual, so is there some indication they put it there “to keep anyone from seeing it” any faster/differently than they would take any other form of diplomatic communication? I would assume it’s pretty standard to talk to legal experts too when it comes to classifying information (which a diplomatic exchange would be, wouldn’t it? I remember that was one serious problem with Wikileaks…the potential consequences of the exposure of diplomatic exchanges). Thought there was a sort of code they have to put on the transcripts labeling each bit classified, and whatnot in case of a FOIA request (a requirement since Clinton was president).
Just thinking further…
for example, my spouse wrote a manual that was 600 pages long. It was classified, and he was required to place a label (classification code, I think it’s called) on each paragraph to indicate whether the paragraph was classified information or not. It took a long while…
I’m pretty sure that required legal guidance.
So, I’ll await your response. Thank you.
Whenever a document contains classified information, every paragraph has to be marked according to the highest classification of the information in that paragraph. The transcript of Trump’s call to the leader of Ukraine (see the last document link in my next post), provides a good example. The document has been declassified, but the old markings are still visible.
Trump supporters are just so dumb and naive!
Yep. Yesterday I was driving down to Denver and a car passed me. They’d placed a sign, “F* Trump” on their back windshield.
My immediate thought was, “Wow, what an independent thinking, erudite individual. Sure wish I could be smart like that”.
@Liz
Try putting a Trump 2020 sticker on your bumper or wearing a MAGA hat. Ask Doug why it would be your fault if someone beat you up.
I’m sure he would be just fine. No need to worry about anything. Exercising his Constitutional free speech will protect him from any possible physical harm. In the very remote possibility that some nut job might cause him physical harm he has that same Constitution in which to litigate justice against the assailant… while recovering from his injuries.
@Doug
Backing away from your own blog post.
https://findingpoliticalsanity.com/the-partisanship-of-patriotism-and-the-hijacking-of-our-symbols/
Heh, just read your response. Thanks Citizen Tom.
Liz,
Sorry, I don’t have time today to look up the specific testimony, but I intend to watch Colonel Vindman’s testimony when it comes, and I suggest that you do the same. Vind man, after all was in on the call and his reaction and his remembrances of the reaction of others on the call is and will be a matter of record. The whistle blower’s complaint, while second hand, is also on hand as a matter of record – it makes clear that people on the call were aghast, disturbed, shocked, choose your metaphor, and that the handling of the call notes (it’s not really a transcript) was highly unusual.
My experience with classification is almost 20 years old and I cannot get into it too deeply, but I can tell you what is public knowledge, that SCI is generally classified based on a sources and methods criteria. Code word limits access within the code word even from those who hold that general level of clearance.
Because numerous Ukrainians were on the call, the Ukrainians undoubtedly have their own transcript, and those foreign parties and and their documents, by definition, could not have SCI clearance or a SCI classification. Therefore classification of the document at the higher level on our side and placing it in an SCI server only makes it more difficult for the necessary officials on our side to know what’s going on in their area of operations. In other words, it puts our people in the dark as to what the Ukrainians (and likely the Russians) already know. Can you see how this might put our diplomats, intelligence officers and military at an intelligence disadvantage? Why take that unusual action if there is nothing to hide?
Because it appears that our President thinks the call was “perfect” and wants everyone to see his corruption as business as usual, it appears that his own people were trying to hide the call to protect the president from his own worst moral and ethical nature.
@tsalmon
Trump restricted access to his phone calls to other heads of state after the deep state leaked a couple his calls in an attempt to embarrass him. Such calls are classified until they are declassified.
I will try to watch the Lt Colonel’s testimony today. Our bandwidth up here leaves a lot to be desired…
This part is confusing to me:
Because numerous Ukrainians were on the call, the Ukrainians undoubtedly have their own transcript, and those foreign parties and and their documents, by definition, could not have SCI clearance or a SCI classification.
Doesn’t that apply to every diplomatic exchange?
We can never know exactly who is listening in.
Therefore classification of the document at the higher level on our side and placing it in an SCI server only makes it more difficult for the necessary officials on our side to know what’s going on in their area of operations.
Again, isn’t that the case with every diplomatic exchange?
In other words, it puts our people in the dark as to what the Ukrainians (and likely the Russians) already know. Can you see how this might put our diplomats, intelligence officers and military at an intelligence disadvantage? Why take that unusual action if there is nothing to hide?
See above. Again, way back when Wikileaks first started releasing information there was a blog I followed, written by a military attache (no longer available, sadly), that detailed the potential consequences with making such diplomatic correspondence open to public scrutiny. So there’s good reason to keep such correspondence private and classified even if we don’t know who is in the other room, or if the Russians are listening in (and I’d assume they are…Chinese probably are too).
@Liz
Tsalmon is blowing smoke. Can you imagine how carefully Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin restricted access to the record of their discussions during WWII?
Liz,
If the call was with on an SCI level secure line (secure at both ends) with a close ally (say Britain) with which we share those sources and methods, then yes, I can see how it would be different. In that case, every person on the call at both ends would have to share the same NATO type clearance for that code word.
Anything is possible I suppose but I simply cannot imagine a new Ukrainian administration and everyone at the Ukrainian end of the call holding SCI clearance.
If the classified material is already open to everyone without the higher classification, what would be the point of code wording it from only your own people?
TSalmon, I want to make sure I understand this…
You’re saying that when the president makes a phone call to a foreign leader from the Oval office, this phone call is typically neither secure nor vetted?
Lis,
No. I never worked for this president in this White House. I can only speak to the logic of LEVELS of classification and say that with this country, on this call, at the time that it happened, code word classification only at our end of the call makes no sense from my perspective as a former Commander collection intelligence platform and a former intelligence collection squadron department head.
Damn. All I ever got to was E-4. Lots of officers in here. I think I’ll go be homeless now.
@Doug
Tsalmon and I are the sons of a retired MSgt, and neither of us made general. So relax.
Ah, well.. I was just an enlistee, after all. Not career gents like you guys and Liz’s hubby. I almost did career myself.. but a bit of last minute sour grapes and a desire to strike out on my own took over. Never regretted the decision… but to this day I miss something about those four years.
“Tsalmon is blowing smoke. Can you imagine how carefully Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin restricted access to the record of their discussions during WWII?“
I’m blowing smoke? If you actually know of something please reference it.
I’m not talking about generally classifying documents of discussions, just a code word classification that highly restricts information from necessary US policy makers who carry out the President’s policy against our adversaries. Unless FDR was hiding his own corruption from his own staff, you’ll have to explain to me why he would highly restrict his discussions from his OWN people who were helping him carry out those negotiations. If Stalin knew that FDR was keeping something secret that FDR didn’t want his own necessary people to know, then Stalin would have had leverage on FDR.
That’s what makes this strange for the people who are actually familiar with what previous presidents have done.
Whether Trump did it or his staff was trying to cover it up, because they were protecting Trump – it’s still unusual and looks like a coverup.
@tsalmon
Since commonsense is a rarity, not common, I wonder why we call it commonsense. Any ideas?
If you wanted to keep a secret would you tell everyone? Apparently, but don’t feel bad. It seems you are not alone.
Please note. Ukraine is fighting Russia. We are Ukraine’s weapons supplier.
“Trump restricted access to his phone calls to other heads of state after the deep state leaked a couple his calls in an attempt to embarrass him. Such calls are classified until they are declassified.”
Tom,
Who is this “deep state”? You’ll have to define for me the elements of this Alt Right conspiracy theory. Do you think that they are good Republicans, Trump’s own picks, who are trying to save Trump and the Republican Party from Trump’s incompetence and his own worst corrupt instincts? Are they career public servants who are whistle blowing on corrupt activities? Are they people who disagree with Trump’s suddenly, impulsively and without guidance, from making damaging changes to bipartisan foreign policy in disregard for our national interests?
On the other hand, if the three ambassadors that have appeared so far (one of which was smeared by Trump on the phone call and continued to be smeared by the leader of the free world while she was testifying) are your “deep state”, then even the Republicans seem to applaud the deep state. Good luck with that conspiracy theory because it’s nonsense.
@tsalmon
Who is the deep state? Why don’t check with The New York Times and The Washington Post? Ask them who their anonymous sources are.
It seems most likely to me that the “anonymous” leaks are mostly coming from Trump’s own political appointees and their staff, not the career civil servants and officers in law enforcement, intelligence, the defense department or the foreign service. This makes sense because of the chaotic Game of Thrones (you’ll have to look up the reference) atmosphere that Trump inspires in his turbulent inner circle. Just look at the stream of disgraced and wounded that continue to stagger, escape or be banished from Trump’s White House. Just look at the infighting, back stabbing and Trump bashing that these dishonored Trumpian knights (see the comments of Nikki Haley, see Rex Tillerson and the soon to be released complaints of John Bolton, among many, many others). Look at the Nepotism. Look at the slimy cast of characters Trump has left. Look at the growing numbers of Trump acolytes and loyalists who are under investigation, indicted, in jail, or who have plead guilty and are awaiting jail (see Roger Stone for the latest). Why is this happening?
Trump is totally self centered. He does not inspire loyalty because he does not give it. Insiders can only earn points with Trump by demeaning ingratiation.
Trump disciplines by bullying, but his bullying is ultimately craven. Trump only knows how to kick down but he never punches up or out.
Trump is mercurial and he has the superficial attention span of a high school mean girl. No one is allowed to carry out a practical policy or to even brief Trump on one. Anytime anyone tries to build a sand castle the child king comes over and kicks it all down.
Trump has no moral compass. No, that’s not exactly right. If Trump has a moral compass, it is always pointed away from virtue and toward vice. From a lifetime of scamming, pride filled self promotion and greed, Trump’s first impulse is to do the wrong thing, even when doing the right thing would work just fine. This leaves his smarter corrupt loyal aids trying to cover up stupid corruption from public view, and trying to save a petulant spoiled Trump from his own idiocy. In other words, Trump is just to superficially corrupt to evil be diabolical.
Tom, if you think that the leaks are coming from some nefarious “deep state”, you are barking up the wrong conspiracy tree. You need look no further than the Machiavellian back stabbing, infighting, scheming and self promoting within Trump’s own Byzantine courtiers.
@tsalmon
You are talking about the Game of Thrones (never watched it) and listening to the Shifty Schiff Sham Show. With the coup plotters right in front of you, you still can’t ID the deep state, and this is after Mueller failed.
In Colorado (only been a resident here for a little over a year now), there seems a disparity between the types of politicians they elect to office (liberal) and the legislation they want implemented (conservative). Makes me think the population doesn’t really understand what they are voting for. I do hope this state won’t all go the way of the people’s republic of Boulder. If so, I’ll have to leave.
My condolences on Virginia. 😦
Side note: I think one saving Grace is, homeschooling has become far more popular (and more feasible) lately. It has probably tripled since my boys were in elementary school. There are a couple of homeschooled boys on the high school football team. This is not unusual anymore.
@Liz
We are in a race. If the Socialists become sufficiently powerful before school choice has a chance to catch on, they will ban it.
Contemplate what the Nazis and the Communists did in their government-run schools. What America’s socialists are doing America’s public schools could end up being far worse. The ideology that supports identity politics is entirely divorced from facts and logic. The “truth” is whatever those in power want to believe at that moment. So, we can only guess what children brought up in such an environment will become. What will people be like if they have been taught from an early age to avoid thinking logically?
Tom
Your post is a candid chronicle and litany of how the progressive liberal secular agenda has progressed over the conservatives and religious foundation of the USA.
In my opinion, there were two major follies that began in the early 1900’s in the USA..
The first was when government took over education from parents and made education too expensive for average parents to afford to send their children to be taught religious values.
The second folly was to legalize abortion which lead to the destruction of two parent families in the USA.
The result was the annual murder of one million American born babies a year. While this was occurring, the unborn babies were replaced by one million immigrants a year into the USA,
Liberals will vilify and crucify both of us being biased religious nut jobs when the read both your post and my post today titled, USA Point of No Return, which I linked to your post.
https://rudymartinka.com/2019/11/12/king-solomon-blog-usa-point-of-no-return/
In time, history will perhaps record the USA eventual downfall as just one more Nation that failed over time who ignored Bible that preached love and wisdom because they decided same as Adam and Eve.
Or in other words, same as the motto of my blog,
“We are the masters of our own disasters.”
Regards and goodwill blogging
@Scatterwisdom
Thanks for your post and the link to mine. Highly recommend what you wrote to my readers.
So, Tom, if the mass media.. or the crony capitalist mass media… has such control over us and is the reason for all the ill feeling toward Conservatives, how should “we” plan to fix that?
@Doug
It is my bed time. So, I think the first step is to get a good night’s rest.
Meanwhile, you can try reading my post again. Your question suggests you didn’t.