The Trump Presidency

[iceaura]

If Russia literally had access to the White house the worlds power dynamics changes dramatically in ways we could only imagine...

Kushner as an asset wouldn't give them that. Trump as an asset wouldn't either. It's just the White House - it's not the secret command center of geopolitical reality.

There has been no "Russian action" so there is no back channel...

Nonsense. Putin's not that stupid. He wouldn't throw away something that valuable that quickly.

And we know there was an attempt at setting up a back channel. That violates any security clearance protocol known to man.

 

[Quantum Quack]

For the worlds various intelligence communities it is apparently "business as usual"..... so go figure....

Media beat up IMO... news organizations fighting to survive etc...

 

[Bells]

well... when we actually witness serious consequences for allowing Jared security clearance then I might consider the issue a serious one as well.

Do you expect the Trump administration to come out and say that there had been a major security breach?

It's been over 100 days and there has been no "consequential" security breaches. All we have is hype and more hype ( hysterics and speculations)

The fact that he approached the Russians to ask for a private backroom channel directly to the Kremlin from the Russian embassy is bad enough.

You should also consider the fact that even as Flynn came under investigation, he was still allowed to maintain his security clearance, which is exceptionally problematic, because he was receiving those briefings and intelligence while acting as a foreign agent for other countries.

Senior officials across the government became convinced in January that the incoming national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, had become vulnerable to Russian blackmail.

At the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — agencies responsible for keeping American secrets safe from foreign spies — career officials agreed that Mr. Flynn represented an urgent problem.

Yet nearly every day for three weeks, the new C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, sat in the Oval Office and briefed President Trump on the nation’s most sensitive intelligence — with Mr. Flynn listening. Mr. Pompeo has not said whether C.I.A. officials left him in the dark about their views of Mr. Flynn, but one administration official said Mr. Pompeo did not share any concerns about Mr. Flynn with the president.

The episode highlights a remarkable aspect of Mr. Flynn’s tumultuous, 25-day tenure in the White House: He sat atop a national security apparatus that churned ahead despite its own conclusion that he was at risk of being compromised by a hostile foreign power.​

So why do you think the Trump administration is going to do anything about Kushner and the risk he poses?

Kushner is known to have been the one to push for Comey's firing over the Russia investigation.

As the Trump administration’s been sent into a death spiral over the firing of FBI Director James Comey last week — a failed move to curtail the Justice Department investigation into contact between his campaign and the Russian government — Kushner hasn’t been the “adult in the room” urging caution and scrupulousness. To the contrary, he’s been urging aggression and retaliation.

And the White House’s reaction to the appointment of Robert Mueller as a special counsel in the Russia inquiry, including a possible attempt to use ethics rules to limit the scope of his investigation, shows that somebody in the White House is deeply worried about what might happen if Kushner were included in the probe.​

Consider what that means...

Consider why Kushner would be pushing to cripple the investigation into the Russian interference with the election?

What could Kushner be so worried about?

He does appear to have been relatively close to the disgraced Flynn. According to at least one report (from NBC News’s Peter Alexander), he and Ivanka Trump were the ones who assured Flynn he could get the job of national security adviser — at a meeting at Trump Tower after the election, Alexander said, Ivanka Trump and Kushner told Flynn that his “loyalty” to the family would be rewarded.

Kushner also accompanied Flynn to his meeting with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period — part of the pattern of contacts between Flynn and Kislyak that Flynn subsequently lost his job for lying about. Kushner, however, also arranged subsequent meetings with Kislyak and other Russian officials — and the White House didn’t disclose those at the time, either.

Kushner’s meetings with Russian officials were enough to bring him onto the radar of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Trump/Russia probe, which is questioning all Trumpworld figures who had contacts with Russia. And his failure to disclose all of those meetings — evenwhen applying for a security clearance — has raised some eyebrows (Democratic Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) has called for Kushner’s clearance to be stripped.)

At least one figure within the Trump White House saw Kushner’s contacts with Russia as a disaster waiting to happen for the administration: Steve Bannon. During a power struggle between Kushner and Bannon in early April, the Times reported that “Mr. Bannon has told confidants that he believes Mr. Kushner’s contact with Russians, and his expected testimony before Congress on the subject, will become a major distraction for the White House.”

Kushner won the power struggle. Perhaps Bannon’s warnings about Kushner and Russia were discarded as just an attempt to weaken a rival (which, in part, they almost certainly were). But in retrospect, it’s becoming clear that Bannon wasn’t wrong.​

Do you have any idea what Putin would do if he had a clandestine back door into the white house? This begs the question if so, then what is stopping him! ?

There is a backdoor channel to the White House. An official one that is monitored by the intelligence agencies. Which begs the question, why did Kushner ask the Russian embassy to set up an unofficial one, that would exist outside of the purview of US intelligence, directly to the Kremlin and the Russians said no, for obvious reasons.

More to the point, why is Kushner and his father-in-law doing everything they both can to undermine the FBI investigation into Russian interference with the Trump campaign and now, because of their dodgy dealings, with the Trump administration itself?

 

[Bells]

Security passwords, id's of all field assets, etc etc etc .. a monumental disaster...

You mean those very assets that Trump exposed when he gave the Russians that intel during his meetings with them in the Oval Office, where he banned all Western media, but allowed Russian media to remain for the meeting?

so what is stopping him... nothing ... because he has no back door and Jared has not breached his security clearance.

The point of the investigation is to ensure that he has not breached his security clearance and is not open to blackmail, and is not personally benefiting from that contact. Why would he now attempt to thwart that investigation by encouraging and supporting the firing of the FBI director, who was involved with said investigation? And why is the Trump now actively doing everything he can to undermine the investigation by the special investigator who was appointed by the DoJ to investigate it, because of how badly Trump handled the whole thing?

remember over 100 days has passed since a backdoor could have been established...

Could have?

One could argue that with a campaign full of foreign agents who were receiving money from Russia for their position as foreign agents, who actively sought contact with Russia, who openly invited Russia to involve itself in the election and even openly asked them to hack into Trump's political opponent, well, one could argue that the backdoor was already established and they have now been caught out trying to protect it.

If Putin had a back door into the White House the whole world would be a very different place probably with in 7 days or so not 100+
Remember nuking China with a single push of a button takes how long?
No.. it all stinks of media hype and hysterics. Journo's trying to keep their jobs in a rapidly changing media world.

The whole world is already vastly different.

Trump has walked right into Putin's wish for Russia by literally rebuking the EU, and the EU is now considering the NATO alliance and arguing that they must now push to no longer require the US for anything and that they will have to go it alone against Russia.

If there was a major security breach we would all know about it ... fact is... there has been no evidence of a major security breach in over 100 days by Jared... but there is plenty of media hysterics.

How would you know about it? You expect the administration that knowingly hired foreign agents and gave them security clearance, fired the lead investigator into said issues and into the country they were receiving money from interfering with the election that saw them win, to tell you if there had been a security breach?

Oh come now, "Putin has an asset in the White House with his finger on the "Nuke China" button.... With out using it?

Why would Putin want to nuke China?

Putin's plans are not in regards to China, but the EU. And that is directly reflected in the manner in which the Trump administration is approaching its allies in the EU, so much so that they have openly declared that they can no longer consider the US as being an equal ally to the EU.

lenty of ways and reasons to get rid of China and get the USA to do it....why not?
Because he has no White House security clearance... hee hee Putin with a white house security clearance by proxy... what a joke...

Again, what is your obsession with nuking China?

 

[iceaura]

For the worlds various intelligence communities it is apparently "business as usual"..... so go figure....

No, it isn't. Apparently. There seems to be quite a bit of roiling and turmoil, with symptoms of trouble popping up frequently. Such as the leaks.

Meanwhile, this from a year ago gives us a hint of the state of the pond Trump and his Familia in the Sicilian Olive Oil Siberian Real Estate business cannonballed into: http://tedgioia.com/nsa_facts.html

 

[Quantum Quack]

Do you expect the Trump administration to come out and say that there had been a major security breach?

allow me to respond by asking you a question in turn:
Do you think that international intelligence organizations are as stupid as Trumps administration appears to be?

As I suggested if you wish to find out about any security breaches you don't ask the USA you ask MI5 or other EU intelligence communities who would be monitoring 24/7 the KGB for any signs of security breaches from the USA or their own organizations.

The point of the investigation is to ensure that he has not breached his security clearance and is not open to blackmail, and is not personally benefiting from that contact. Why would he now attempt to thwart that investigation by encouraging and supporting the firing of the FBI director, who was involved with said investigation? And why is the Trump now actively doing everything he can to undermine the investigation by the special investigator who was appointed by the DoJ to investigate it, because of how badly Trump handled the whole thing?

If there was strong evidence to support the notion that Jared was compromised his security clearance would be removed by the international community and not just the USA.

Do you think the International Intel. community is going to wait around for the green light from these USA investigations?

The whole world is already vastly different.

Trump has walked right into Putin's wish for Russia by literally rebuking the EU, and the EU is now considering the NATO alliance and arguing that they must now push to no longer require the US for anything and that they will have to go it alone against Russia.

Trump just did his usual idiotic NPD thing....
Demonstrating his willful ignorance and paranoia
You honestly don't expect a person who can barely read what he writes that Tweets nonsense claiming it to be effective communication to be an effective world leader or major player in some grand Russian conspiracy do you?

How would you know about it? You expect the administration that knowingly hired foreign agents and gave them security clearance, fired the lead investigator into said issues and into the country they were receiving money from interfering with the election that saw them win, to tell you if there had been a security breach?

No, I would expect to see USA Intel. quarantined and isolated by the international Intel community and the public told about it. ( this has not happened and appears very unlikely)

After all a potentially compromised 5 eyes or Echelon is a really, really big deal.

Again, what is your obsession with nuking China?

I posted that because I see no limit to what the collateral damage may be of such a security issue. The only limitations would be determined by the beneficiary (Putin)

and a chance to remove a major player with out being directly involved would be just too rare and too good if he had it...
He would already have co-opted the USA so that is no problem so now all he has left to do would be China..and by the time the world found out it would be way too late.
Hasn't happened and wont happen because there IS NO security breach.

Remember it has been over 100 days since inauguration which is more than enough time for the International Intel communities to pick up that a breach has occurred and for Putin to act.

 

[Schmelzer]

So when I point to your sources and the origins of your posts, I am accurate - I have identified them. You are reposting the media feed of the American Heritage Institute and related organizations. You not merely don't, but actively refuse, to see what's wrong with it.

No, this is yet another source of error. Sorry for having not mentioned all sources of your errors. And the "reposting" as well as the "actively refusing" are lies. You know the meaning of "is for me not necessarily"? It means that I do not automatically agree with you. But sometimes I may agree with you.

In the Clinton/Trump campaign coverage, unfavorable to one was favorable to the other. And you know that, that was the matter at hand in the thread - whether the media was supporting Trump or Clinton during the campaign.

This may be so in the primitive world of a Party soldier. But if I make such a claim about your position, you heavily object. The same for me, I have supported Trump only as less evil. What was the thread about does not matter at all, because I have checked if a particular claim of your source was accurate or not. And this particular claim was about "favorable or neutral for Trump", not about Clinton.

Meanwhile, the ridiculousness of your "test" - the ludicrous nature of any claim from it, the clownish absurdity of that silly, silly post - remains.

You hate this simple test more and more, given that you use more and more aggressive attacks. But it was a nice and simple check of plausibility of the 63% claim of your source. It was certainly not the aim to make a similar check for all the NYT articles, this would need a lot of time, and nobody pays for this. Anyway, the result was so obviously far away from the 63% pro Trump that it makes it clear enough that your study was a primitive lie.

I referred to it by name, publication, and author.
In post 1475, this thread, immediately after your post 1474. I described it at some length, to draw your reading and acquisition of information. No luck.
That was the second mention - the first was in post 1460, direct reply to you, but brief. I figured maybe you missed it.

I have no library nearby, so this makes no sense. Give a link if there is free access. (I see, the access is not free at all, beyond one article per month: "You’ve read your free article from Harper’s Magazine this month." Harper's Magazine thanks your for your support (once joepistole likes to think I get paid by evil Russia, I could not resist to ask how much you get paid by Harper's Magazine?)

Moreover, given that I have no problem at all with the description you have given: "The optimism, such as it is, in the libertarian Left in the US is from the possibility that Trump's current battles with the Security agencies will weaken both instead of producing either a winner or a pact (see Michael Glennon's article in the June Harper's Magazine)." because I share this hope that this battle weakens the US even more. So, there would be no reason for me to read this, because there would be no way to correct my position.

Correcting your "position" was the point. As you can discover by reading that essay or any number of other source provided to you, Trump is not in a "battle with the Clintinoids" - that's ignorant, and I provided you with information as so many times before: that's what you wanted, remember?

As you have seen, once you give a link, I read it. If the reading corrects some of my positions or not is another question. Don't forget that, say, a fair description of the anti-Trumpers or whatever he is in conflict with in the CIA is nothing I care about at all, so naming them "Clintonoids" is simply a quite irrelevant label to name them all. Once I do not really have an opinion about how to accurately name them, what would be the point of correcting it? I can name them "joepistole's comrades" if you like. Would this change anything?

BTW, it is quite funny (from far away at least, living in America I would be scared a lot) to observe the Russian spies hysteria here in action. Note that this Russian spies hysteria is not Trump's fault, it is what the anti-Trumpers do. Spy hysterias are a very dangerous thing, remember Stalin time.

So, this indeed remembers old times, nationalists (fascists, Trump) vs. internationalists (globalists, Soros).

 

[Bells]

allow me to respond by asking you a question in turn:
Do you think that international intelligence organizations are as stupid as Trumps administration appears to be?

As I suggested if you wish to find out about any security breaches you don't ask the USA you ask MI5 or other EU intelligence communities who would be monitoring 24/7 the KGB for any signs of security breaches from the USA or their own organizations.

And you expect intelligence communities to come out and say such things?

There has already been a known security breach due to the Russian contact and attempts to get a secret line to the Kremlin from the Russian embassy in Washington..

If there was strong evidence to support the notion that Jared was compromised his security clearance would be removed by the international community and not just the USA.

Do you think the International Intel. community is going to wait around for the green light from these USA investigations?

It was not removed for Flynn, despite the fact they knew he was compromised and they knew that he was under investigation.. Trump never revoked his clearance until weeks later.

So why do you think the international security would remove Kushner's security clearance? They cannot remove it. Trump can.

I mean, you have missed the many reports out of Europe of many countries there expressing a new reticence to sharing intel with the US because of Trump administration's close ties to Russia and because he is pushing the Putin line on NATO and the EU?

Trump just did his usual idiotic NPD thing....
Demonstrating his willful ignorance and paranoia
You honestly don't expect a person who can barely read what he writes that Tweets nonsense claiming it to be effective communication to be an effective world leader or major player in some grand Russian conspiracy do you?

Trump has been pushing Putin's argument about NATO and the EU throughout his Presidential campaign. It was not new.

No, I would expect to see USA Intel. quarantined and isolated by the international Intel community and the public told about it. ( this has not happened and appears very unlikely)

After all a potentially compromised 5 eyes or Echelon is a really, really big deal.

Why would the public be told about it? As it stands, EU nations have openly declared their unwillingness to be close to Trump's America and intend to simply go it alone, which is pretty much a confirmation that a form of isolation of the US and Trump has already begun.

You seem to have this somewhat naive belief that intelligence organisations around the world are going to admit anything to the public. It would kind of defeat the purpose of secrecy if they came out and admitted that they were shutting the US out. To the one, it would send a message of a weakened intelligence community and it would open the US to the possibility of attack.

I posted that because I see no limit to what the collateral damage may be of such a security issue. The only limitations would be determined by the beneficiary (Putin)

and a chance to remove a major player with out being directly involved would be just too rare and too good if he had it...
He would already have co-opted the USA so that is no problem so now all he has left to do would be China..and by the time the world found out it would be way too late.
Hasn't happened and wont happen because there IS NO security breach.

The beneficiary is Trump. And Putin already benefits with Trump praising the possibility of the break-up of the EU, not to mention stifling NATO..

I posted that because I see no limit to what the collateral damage may be of such a security issue. The only limitations would be determined by the beneficiary (Putin)

and a chance to remove a major player with out being directly involved would be just too rare and too good if he had it...
He would already have co-opted the USA so that is no problem so now all he has left to do would be China..and by the time the world found out it would be way too late.
Hasn't happened and wont happen because there IS NO security breach.

The various investigations by the FBI, specially appointed investigator and the houses of Government in the US tends to indicate that there may very well have been a breach and at least one has had to be dismissed because of the risk he posed..

Ask yourself, QQ, why would Trump fire the one person who was in charge of the biggest investigation if he had nothing to hide?

Remember it has been over 100 days since inauguration which is more than enough time for the International Intel communities to pick up that a breach has occurred and for Putin to act.

100 days is nothing in Governmental speak.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ask yourself, QQ, why would Trump fire the one person who was in charge of the biggest investigation if he had nothing to hide?

Collusion with Russia is one thing, espionage is another...
Are you saying that Trump is guilty of espionage? That he is being investigated for espionage? A secret back door would be what? Collusion or espionage?

Of course Trump has something to hide... but is it espionage or having a metaphorical bro-mantic beer with Putin?

100 days is nothing in Governmental speak.

True, but in espionage every second counts...

If you have evidence of espionage and the consequences of such then let's hear of it...
Jared maintains his security clearance because there is no reason to revoke it..other than innuendo and speculation. ( hence the investigation)

Do you see reason to revoke his clearance based on immediate concerns?

If he was a security risk the rest of the world would revoke his clearance by quarantining the USA. So far they have not. Sure there are rumblings of speculation but as far as the rest of the world is concerned he nor even Trump pose such a significant risk to warrant quarrantine.

This is what I mean by researching the international intel agencies for what's happening in the USA and not the USA.

Accordingly one has to conclude that Trumps administration does not pose an unacceptable risk.

 

[iceaura]

And the "reposting" as well as the "actively refusing" are lies.

No, they aren't.

You know the meaning of "is for me not necessarily"? It means that I do not automatically agree with you

But your disagreement means nothing, since you are ignorant and refuse to become informed - or at least adopt that as your posting identity. You can disagree with physical reality all you want - it's not going anywhere.

I have no library nearby, so this makes no sense. Give a link if there is free access.

Now I'm supposed to guess your library privileges? And I did give a link, to a free read, only to be told I was lying about having given you the reference earlier.

Moreover, given that I have no problem at all with the description you have given: "The optimism, such as it is, in the libertarian Left in the US is from the possibility that Trump's current battles with the Security agencies will weaken both instead of producing either a winner or a pact (see Michael Glennon's article in the June Harper's Magazine)." because I share this hope that this battle weakens the US even more. So, there would be no reason for me to read this, because there would be no way to correct my position.

Your "position" is rendered untenable by the article, which is why I referred it for you. You actively refused to inform yourself. I was providing information to correct your quoted errors, as many times before, exactly as you pretended to recommend I do (while refusing to acknowledge the frequent doing of the past).

You have an infinite bag of excuses for not becoming informed. They are beginning to blur together - they all sound the same, and they all end in the same place: you reposting falsehoods and bs from the American Heritage Institute's propaganda feed, refusing to acknowledge the fact, and refusing to correct your errors.

Once I do not really have an opinion about how to accurately name them, what would be the point of correcting it?

Label them accurately: "Trump's allies in fascist governance". Do you see the point now?

BTW, it is quite funny (from far away at least, living in America I would be scared a lot) to observe the Russian spies hysteria here in action. Note that this Russian spies hysteria is not Trump's fault, it is what the anti-Trumpers do. Spy hysterias are a very dangerous thing, remember Stalin time.

Russian spy hysteria is completely familiar, has been a routine part of American politics since WWII. Trump's supporters, rightwing authoritarians these days known as Republicans, have been the chief promulgators and hysterics all that time. Yes, they are dangerous in their hysteria. Fascists are always dangerous, and usually hysterical about something.

Trump is at fault, in this recent development, for corrupting his office and betraying his country by dealing with the Russian mob, and concealing the nature of these dealings while campaigning for the powers and privileges of high office and community responsibility. He and his Familia are a security threat, and a particularly dangerous one due to his office. That's not hysteria, that's observation.

So, this indeed remembers old times, nationalists (fascists, Trump) vs. internationalists (globalists, Soros)

Trump is an internationalist. So is his Secretary of State and the Goldman Sachs execs in his administration. So is every member of his Family installed in the White House. So are his allies in government and in the US corporate authoritarian establishment.

 

[Schmelzer]

Now I'm supposed to guess your library privileges? And I did give a link, to a free read, only to be told I was lying about having given you the reference earlier.

You have to accept as a fact that I use only free internet sources. Once you have given the link, I have read it. And you have to live with the fact that "Here's a reminder link:" is named a lie if the link is posted the first time.

Your "position" is rendered untenable by the article, which is why I referred it for you.

This is the difference between "my position" as you present it and my real position. I found nothing in the article in contradiction with my position.

Label them accurately: "Trump's allies in fascist governance". Do you see the point now?

Of course. I wonder why your beloved article writes about these Trump allies "Many never-Trumpers in both parties now regard the security bureaucracy as their last, best hope."

Trump's supporters, rightwing authoritarians these days known as Republicans, have been the chief promulgators and hysterics all that time. Yes, they are dangerous in their hysteria. Fascists are always dangerous, and usually hysterical about something.

But, surprisingly, now the never-Trumpers use the Russian spy hysteria. (And you wonder why I don't see a big difference.) And, of course, a hysteria which you share is not hysteria, but observation. LOL. An iceaura observation.

And we learn that fascism is no longer nationalist but internationalist. In fact, not as nonsensical as it sounds, I remember that Mussolini has tried to create some fascist international. But this was not really a success story.

 

[Kittamaru]

So... regarding Trump's moral leanings...

... does anyone else have to wonder if Ivanka hasn't, perhaps, been coerced or otherwise harmed in some way. I'm sorry, that just is NOT normal fatherly behavior...

 

[joepistole]

So... regarding Trump's moral leanings...

... does anyone else have to wonder if Ivanka hasn't, perhaps, been coerced or otherwise harmed in some way. I'm sorry, that just is NOT normal fatherly behavior...

Well, he is after all America's first Russian president. What amazes me most is the support Trump and Republicans at large garner from Christian zealots. There isn't anything Christian about Trump. Trump is the antithesis of everything I have learned about Christianity, and yet many Christians support the man. It's an amazing thing to witness.

 

[Bells]

Collusion with Russia is one thing, espionage is another...
Are you saying that Trump is guilty of espionage? That he is being investigated for espionage? A secret back door would be what? Collusion or espionage?

Of course Trump has something to hide... but is it espionage or having a metaphorical bro-mantic beer with Putin?

Huh?

Who said anything about espionage?

Sorry, but your argument style is akin to taking a discussion about oranges and you enter the fray and start talking about a potato..

True, but in espionage every second counts...

Who is talking about espionage?

If you have evidence of espionage and the consequences of such then let's hear of it...
Jared maintains his security clearance because there is no reason to revoke it..other than innuendo and speculation. ( hence the investigation)

....?

Jared maintains his security clearance because the boss is his father-in-law.

That's pretty obvious from this point, isn't it?

Do you see reason to revoke his clearance based on immediate concerns?

This hasn't been made clear already?

His failing to disclose huge amounts of funds received from a foreign source.
Failure to disclose several meetings with Russians, alongside Flynn.
His attempt to set up a private channel with the Kremlin from inside the Russian embassy.
His encouragement of firing the man leading the investigation into the Russian interference with the election, in an attempt to thwart that investigation and shut it down.
His family using his name and his family business to sell visa's to foreign nationals and literally selling access to the White House.
The fact that he is the President's son-in-law with no experience in foreign policy or intelligence and security.

If he was a security risk the rest of the world would revoke his clearance by quarantining the USA.

*Raises eyebrows*

That's not how this kind of thing works, QQ.

So far they have not.

How do you know they have not?

This is not the sort of thing they advertise publicly.

Sure there are rumblings of speculation but as far as the rest of the world is concerned he nor even Trump pose such a significant risk to warrant quarrantine.

How do you know they have not already done so?

This is what I mean by researching the international intel agencies for what's happening in the USA and not the USA.

Accordingly one has to conclude that Trumps administration does not pose an unacceptable risk.

And other reports are stating that US spies are informing their counterparts in other parts of the world to not share information with the Trump administration, because it cannot be trusted.

 

[iceaura]

And we learn that fascism is no longer nationalist but internationalist. In fact, not as nonsensical as it sounds,

It's kind of standard fascist behavior - usually via military and paramilitary violence in support of corporate interests. Sound familiar? All over South America and Europe, also in SE Asia, and of course from the US in Iraq et al, and Iraq, somewhat Israel, South Africa, etc in front of your face.

Of course it's behavior, often counter to rhetoric - something you have trouble perceiving, we have noticed. You keep suckering for fascist propaganda.

Of course. I wonder why your beloved article writes about these Trump allies "Many never-Trumpers in both parties now regard the security bureaucracy as their last, best hope."

It doesn't. That's a different faction. And I do not believe you don't know that.

But, surprisingly, now the never-Trumpers use the Russian spy hysteria. (And you wonder why I don't see a big difference.)

You pretend ignorance - as if you didn't know who the "never-Trumpers" were (Republicans), or haven't noticed that many are already Trump allies.

You have to accept as a fact that I use only free internet sources. Once you have given the link, I have read it.

The original reference was available on free internet, just like the specific link. Information, to correct an error in quoted posting of yours - what you wanted, remember?

This is the difference between "my position" as you present it and my real position. I found nothing in the article in contradiction with my position.

Refusal to learn, even when specifically directed (and even after noticing that you were coming from a "much different" position than this well-informed person). Once again.

Lesson One: That the CIA violence is part of Trump's agenda and standard mode of operation, not a "deep state" influence.

 

[Schmelzer]

It doesn't. That's a different faction. And I do not believe you don't know that.

I do not even pretend to know that. That's why my position about the various factions and forces of the deep state remains vague. I see no possibility to explain anything in the US without the hypothesis of a deep state. But particular theories about the deep state have, necessarily, a touch of conspiracy theory.

You pretend ignorance - as if you didn't know who the "never-Trumpers" were (Republicans), or haven't noticed that many are already Trump allies.

????? I translate this as "as if you didn't know that my recommended source lies, talking about "many never-Trumpers in both parties"".

The original reference was available on free internet, just like the specific link.

No. A single article per month for free does not make a journal "available on free internet".

Refusal to learn, even when specifically directed (and even after noticing that you were coming from a "much different" position than this well-informed person).

No, refusal to accept your lies about my position as my position.

 

[iceaura]

I do not even pretend to know that. That's why my position about the various factions and forces of the deep state remains vague.

No, it isn't. Your "position" remains vague because so far all your forays into making it precise ran into direct conflict with events and circumstances. You've been reduced to a "deep state" consisting of nothing but the Intelligence agency bureaucracy factions that supported Clinton's State Department evils - that doesn't even include major factions of the FBI and CIA who thought ill of Clinton and worked against her election - simply because your hypothetical deep state is required to have been opposed to Trump and in conflict with Trump's agenda.

I see no possibility to explain anything in the US without the hypothesis of a deep state.

You just read an article, by the well informed and thoughtful Michael Glenning, that does exactly that. You have also read other such articles, and posts from informed Americans here, that do that. Meanwhile, your "deep state" hypothesis has led you into multiple confusions and errors and posting of falsehood. At what point do you abandon what clearly isn't working?

No. A single article per month for free does not make a journal "available on free internet".

That article was available to you for free on the internet. I referred you to it. You ignored it, ignored it the second time, on the third reference read it carelessly and missed the information it provided, and now have returned to asserting that if I quote your errors and provide corrective information you will pay attention and learn.

You won't. And I post accordingly.

No, refusal to accept your lies about my position as my position.

You, not I, claimed your "position" was much different from Glenning's. I simply noticed that fact earlier, and posted Glenning's information so you could correct your position. That's what you wanted, remember? For example: You have repeatedly asserted that Trump's intensification of the drone war and returning control of it to the CIA was an example of the influence of the deep state - as Glenning points out, it wasn't: it was an example of Trump's influence over the CIA and the drone wars, Trump's agenda being established. (It was Obama, according to you a deep state puppet, who removed the CIA from control of the drone wars). So now you can correct your "position" on deep state influence over Trump - or Obama, or the CIA itself, your choice I guess - accordingly.

 

[Schmelzer]

No, it isn't. Your "position" ....

And yet another wild fantasy about what I think.

You just read an article, by the well informed and thoughtful Michael Glenning, that does exactly that.

But, strangely, I see no conflict at all between Glenning and what I think about the deep state. He prefers to name it "the bureaucratic state", and describes how it has worked:

The early-morning briefing from the CIA had long been more than a mere secret-news-of-the-world update: It was an agenda-setting meeting during which the agency laid out its framework for thinking about international developments and which sparked protracted discussion among White House participants. That worldview, internationalist in nature and emphasizing an activist international role at the expense of domestic priorities, extended well beyond the briefing.

This is, in a quite polite form, what one could easily reformulate polemically into

The early-morning briefing from the CIA had long been something different than a secret-news-of-the-world update: It was an agenda-setting meeting during which the agency told the president the framework for thinking about international developments and which sparked protracted discussion among White House participants. That worldview, globalist in nature and emphasizing an aggressive international role at the expense of domestic priorities, was accepted by the former presidents.

You've been reduced to a "deep state" consisting of nothing but the Intelligence agency bureaucracy factions that supported Clinton's State Department evils - that doesn't even include major factions of the FBI and CIA who thought ill of Clinton and worked against her election - simply because your hypothetical deep state is required to have been opposed to Trump and in conflict with Trump's agenda.

Nonsense. I have always said that Trump would not have had any chance to win elections without support of some factions of the deep state.

That article was available to you for free on the internet.

No. Harper's magazine is not for free. If it allows one article per month for free, as a promotional offer, does not mean that this particular article was for free for me at that moment. If I had already read one article in that month, it was not available for free. So, don't lie about free access to a journal you seem to have some interest to support if they give only one article per month free access. But I expect that this discussion will continue now forever, given that as your answer, as my response are a repetition of a commercial for your beloved Harper's magazine: They have free internet access!!!!111 Imagine 1 free article every month!!!!11!!! Go buy it, iceaura waits for provisions.

You, not I, claimed your "position" was much different from Glenning's. I simply noticed that fact earlier, and posted Glenning's information so you could correct your position. That's what you wanted, remember? For example: You have repeatedly asserted that Trump's intensification of the drone war and returning control of it to the CIA was an example of the influence of the deep state - as Glenning points out, it wasn't: it was an example of Trump's influence over the CIA and the drone wars, Trump's agenda being
established.

Let's see some context:

Some of Trump’s antagonists blithely assume that the security bureaucracy will fight him to the death, but it has never faced the raw hostility of an all-out frontal assault from the White House. If the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support — not oppose — many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance. ...
That deep-seated propensity will play into Trump’s hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally. Trump has already restored the CIA’s authority to conduct drone strikes, dropped plans for a far-ranging White House review of the intelligence community, and broadened Pentagon authority over military operations.
Undoubtedly, some officials will leave when faced with Trump’s sticks. But plenty, I suspect, will overcome their qualms, accept Trump’s carrots, and do his bidding.

So, there is actually a heavy fight. Here I agree with him, and reject your "Trump's influence over the CIA" fantasy. The question is if this fight is forever, or if Trump can win. The way to win includes sticks and carrots. So, the things you name "Trump's influence over the CIA" are simply the carrots which Trump uses to win in this infight. I see no conflict with my position.

(It was Obama, according to you a deep state puppet, who removed the CIA from control of the drone wars).

To intensify these drone wars himself a lot. So, this was not "control" in the meaning of reducing it to some minimum, but "control" in the sense of "nice game, I want to do this myself, and more of this".

But after Candidate Obama had forcefully and eloquently promised fundamental change, President Obama’s remarkable continuation of numerous Bush-era national security policies — warrantless mass surveillance, drone strikes, state-secrets claims, torturer immunity — ultimately took its toll.

Don't forget, my "deep state" is not that single evil ruler somewhere in the CIA who rules everything. It of course includes a lot of internal fight for power inside the deep state, and Obama taking power to control drone strikes is natural part of such power games. I have always rejected the extreme position that the legal power-holders are only puppets, not deep-state players themselves. The point of the deep state is that it is not the formal, official democracy which rules, but hidden power games beyond formal democracy. Power games which make election promises simply irrelevant.

 

[iceaura]

But, strangely, I see no conflict at all between Glenning and what I think about the deep state. He prefers to name it "the bureaucratic state", and describes how it has worked:

Which is why I recommended the article to you. From it you can get a better handle on how the US actually functions, and replace your deep state dominance conspiracy with a more realistic notion of how Republican (fascist) ideology would fit in.

So, there is actually a heavy fight. Here I agree with him, and reject your "Trump's influence over the CIA" fantasy.

If you reject Trump's returning control of the drones to the CIA as an example of Trump's influence and agenda, you are not agreeing with Glenning as I am. You are disagreeing.
The "heavy fight", meanwhile, is only against Trump's personal interference and command, and possibly his Russian mob entanglements, not his political agenda and foreign policy preferences: " - - - Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance. - - - " All that stuff is what you have claimed Trump opposed and the deep state favored, and what I keep telling you - and Glenning agrees with me - is Trump's (Republican, fascist) agenda. Trump wants that stuff, going in. He will be trying to bend the CIA in that direction, (or allow it to go that way), rather than the other way around.

So, this was not "control" in the meaning of reducing it to some minimum, but "control" in the sense of "nice game, I want to do this myself, and more of this".

It was neither one, or anything like that. Obama transferred the drone strike program from the CIA to the Pentagon. Neither one of those is the White House even, much less Obama himself. And that transfer had nothing do do with how much drone killing was done total - Obama could have done as much drone war with the CIA as with the Pentagon, that made no difference. You can see that Trump has increased the drone strikes yet more, under the CIA - nothing prevented Obama from doing that, had he chose.

The entire sequence of events has been the exact opposite of your bizarre claim that the Democrats favored clandestine CIA stuff over regular Pentagon military operations, and the Republicans vice versa - if you care.

Don't forget, my "deep state" is not that single evil ruler somewhere in the CIA who rules everything. It of course includes a lot of internal fight for power inside the deep state, and Obama taking power to control drone strikes is natural part of such power games

1) You don't have a deep state at all - you have a vague hypothesis that isn't making any sense.
2) Obama did not do that, or anything like that. That's not what the US President actually does all day when doing their job (with Trump all bets are off) - Obama certainly did not command drone strike operations, or personally control them on any but the most distant and general policy level, occasionally signing off, maybe, on particular very touchy murderings. He didn't have time. He merely transferred control away from the CIA and your supposed deep state, and into the Pentagon which you have seemingly excluded from your deep state. The opposite of what a CIA inclusive deep state puppet would do, of course - if you care.

Power games which make election promises simply irrelevant.

Elections have proven critical in the US - radical and dramatic changes in foreign and domestic policy have pivoted on them. So your deep state hypothesis has yet another conflict with events and circumstances.

 

[Schmelzer]

It was neither one, or anything like that. Obama transferred the drone strike program from the CIA to the Pentagon. Neither one of those is the White House even, much less Obama himself.
2) Obama did not do that, or anything like that. That's not what the US President actually does all day when doing their job (with Trump all bets are off) - Obama certainly did not command drone strike operations, or personally control them on any but the most distant and general policy level, occasionally signing off, maybe, on particular very touchy murderings. He didn't have time.

Oh, you denie Obama's killing lists? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html

When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.
“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” said Thomas E. Donilon, his national security adviser.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/14/obama-secret-kill-list-disposition-matrix

Since the Obama administration largely shut down the CIA's rendition programme, choosing instead to dispose of its enemies in drone attacks, those individuals who are being nominated for killing have been discussed at a weekly counter-terrorism meeting at the White House situation room that has become known as Terror Tuesday. Barack Obama, in the chair and wishing to be seen as a restraining influence, agrees the final schedule of names.