╌>

Democrats continue to conspire with Deep State to defeat Trump

  
Via:  XXJefferson51  •  7 years ago  •  13 comments

By:   John R. Smith

Democrats continue to conspire with Deep State to defeat Trump
This whole House campaign is a blatant example of the influence and power of the Washington Deep State—the thousands of unelected, government career employees in Washington DC who remain in place, regardless of which political party is in power. These people think they “run” the country, that they are the ones who should develop our foreign policies and our relationships with foreign countries. Another way of explaining the Deep State is that it’s a hidden government within the legitimately...

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

The deep state conspiracy is real and it has been colluding with democrats to undermine the Trump Administration and his America first agenda his supporters voted for.  


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The Democrats’ campaign to defeat President Trump shifted into a higher gear last week.

House of Representatives Speaker Pelosi dictated six House committees to fire up an “impeachment inquiry”, calling witnesses. Leaving aside the question of whether there are better ways for the House to spend its time addressing the needs of the American people, one of the witnesses was Marie Yovanovitch, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. An Obama appointee, Yovanovitch, with Russian parents, moved to America from Canada and grew up speaking Russian. Trump recalled her from Ukraine in May, 2019. Not surprisingly, even though she was not fired from the State Department, this outraged career State Department diplomats, who believe it is their province to decide how diplomats serve.

The Democrats wanted her testimony to boost their case to batter the President and cripple his chances to be re-elected. Other columnists can debate how effective she was. Or wasn’t.

The deeper concern for the American people is to understand what’s really going on here. When you strip away Pelosi’s and Chairman Adam Schiff’s camouflage, what’s their effort all about?

Here’s the answer.

This whole House campaign is a blatant example of the influence and power of the Washington Deep State—the thousands of unelected, government career employees in Washington DC who remain in place, regardless of which political party is in power. These people think they “run” the country, that they are the ones who should develop our foreign policies and our relationships with foreign countries. Another way of explaining the Deep State is that it’s a hidden government within the legitimately elected government, which operates without the consent of the governed, reshaping and controlling national policies. The people in it, entrenched professional politicians and career civil servants, believe they know what’s best for the American people, not those currently occupying the elected positions of power.

One example of the Deep State at work, behind a veil of secrecy, was provided in the Hillary Clinton private email investigation, where kid-glove treatment and immunity for her aides was victorious. Another was the Mueller Special Counsel investigation, formed into existence by Deep Staters, involving hundreds of witnesses, pre-dawn raids on suspects and seized computers. Also, you will recall how furious the Deep Staters were over Trump pulling America out of the Paris Climate Accord, without consulting them.

You have heard the names of Comey, Rosenstein, Ohr, Yates, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, Page, McCabe — just the tip of the Deep State iceberg — all working against a duly-elected president. Sally Yates, for example, openly declared she would not defend Trump’s decision to halt refugees from certain Muslim countries, and was then applauded by Brennan for her action.

Another example of both the Deep State and its pervasive influence in Washington involves Nikki Haley, the former Ambassador to the U.N. In her new book, she states that former Chief of Staff and Director of Homeland Security, John Kelly, and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson both attempted to get Haley to undermine President Trump’s foreign policy. And now we have the Adam Schiff Impeachment Inquisition—closed door hearings, restricted witnesses, no due process, selected release of transcripts, whistleblower/leaker “protection”.

Partisan, Deep State career State Department officials abetted, then covered up, Ukrainian collusion with Democrats in the 2016 election campaign. Marie Yovanovitch, who lied under oath, is part of the Deep State bureaucracy which, relying on internal cronyism and collusion, is working from within the government against a sitting president. She is one of the U.S. diplomats who has made a career in the civil-service-protected State Department, and who professes to have no political opinion but who has forgotten she’s there to serve the commander-in-chief. She is charged with implementing the policies of the sitting president who, according to the Constitution, sets the policies, and who has the absolute right to appoint ambassadors. And yet, Rep. Jim Jordan showed during Yovanovitch’s testimony that she gave no “push-back when Ukrainians openly opposed Donald Trump”. Trump has stated that the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her, possibly because of her Russian background. Deep Staters may not like it, but it was Trump’s right to recall her, which provides the motive for her to do her best to undermine his re-election.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    7 years ago

 She is one of the U.S. diplomats who has made a career in the civil-service-protected State Department, and who professes to have no political opinion but who has forgotten she’s there to serve the commander-in-chief.

Ambassadors don't take an oath to the President, and certainly not a president****** as fucked up in the head as Donald Trump. 

It's a tragedy that garbage like this gets presented on NT every day as if it had any validity.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    7 years ago

Trump Defenders Confused by Use of Synonyms

In recent days, Democrats have begun describing President Trump’s demands that Ukraine discredit his domestic opponents as “bribery.” Conservative media has  excitedly   seized  on the new terminological emphasis as proof that the substantive case against his conduct has fallen apart.

This claim formed an important basis of the Republican defense. “After trying out several different accusations against President Trump, the Democrats have recently settled on ‘bribery’ — according to widespread reports, they replaced their ‘quid pro quo’ allegation because it wasn’t polling well,” sneered House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes in his opening statement. “The American people are asking, if the facts are the same, why do the crimes the president of the United States are accused of keep changing?” demanded Representative John Ratcliffe. “Why do we go from quid pro quo to extortion and now to bribery?”

This is the kind of sharp analytic insight Ratcliffe might have brought to the post of director of National Intelligence, had his candidacy not been tragically sunk by a combination of Republican concerns and his own résumé inflation.

In fact, it was not Democrats who introduced “quid pro quo” as the name of Trump’s crime. The first uses of the phrase I could find in mainstream media in conjunction with this scandal came through reporters conveying a defense of Trump. “One source familiar with the contents of the [July 25 Trump-Zelensky] phone call said that Trump did not raise the issue of American military and intelligence aid that the administration was at the time withholding from Ukraine — indicating that there may not have been an explicit quid pro quo expressed in that conversation,”  reported  the Washington  Post  on September 20. A September 21  Wall Street   Journal   report  contained a similar defense: “Mr. Trump in the call didn’t mention a provision of U.S. aid to Ukraine, said this person, who didn’t believe Mr. Trump offered the Ukrainian president any quid pro quo for his cooperation on any investigation.”

Trump himself quickly picked up on this terminology. “No quid pro quo, there was nothing,” he told reporters the next day. Republicans began  repeating  “no quid pro quo,” as their major talking point. The purpose of this line was to draw a defensible position, conceding that Trump had asked for investigations but denying he had tied them to any favorable actions in response. This defense quickly collapsed, as a string of revelations proved beyond any conceivable doubt that Trump’s extortion did include explicit quid pro quo demands.

Obviously, “quid pro quo” was not a description of the crime itself. A quid pro quo is not inherently improper. People trade things all the time. The impropriety is trading official government acts (a White House meeting and military aid) in return for political favors (ginned-up investigations against Trump’s enemies).

That offense could be described as extortion, if you want to emphasize the pressure exerted on the Ukrainians. It could also be described as bribery, if you want to emphasize the favor Trump was soliciting. In any case, using different words to describe the same improper act is not changing the accusation.

So to say that Democrats are changing the crime Trump is being charged with is doubly wrong. “Quid pro quo” is not and never was the crime. It was a denial used by Trump. And using different words for the same crime does not mean the suspect is innocent.

 
 

Who is online

Jeremy Retired in NC
devangelical


232 visitors