Forum Replies Created
-
Quick question for you, WV.
Do you see these three things all linked, or working together, or in cahoots? You listed them together.
“MSM/DNC/Deep-state.”
Did you leave out the GOP for a reason?
=================
Well, i dont think ‘deep state’ or ‘corporotacracy’ have hard-and-fast, mathematical definitions. They are just ‘useful labels’ i
use. Flawed but useful ‘constructions.’ The system is
hard to describe. Hard to ‘figure out.’ Its hard to describe its shape and components. Its not monolithic, i think we can say that. Its got internal debates and contested ground. But it still has a shape. There is ‘something’ there.Its a bit like postmodernism or existentialism though, in the sense that its hard to get a handle on. But there’s ‘something’ there, i think.
I just think of ‘it’ as a collection of subsystems. A collection of power-systems that are connected, and they derail democracy. I basically think Lofgren and Moyers talk about the shape of it well enuff. Though i think they leave out the now obvious (to me) and hideous link between the deep-state and the MSM. I now think of the MSM as just another branch or subset of the deep-state.
w
v
“…Mike Lofgren, a former GOP congressional staff member with the powerful House and Senate Budget Committees, joins Bill to talk about what he calls the Deep State, a hybrid of corporate America and the national security state, which is “out of control” and “unconstrained.” In it, Lofgren says, elected and unelected figures collude to protect and serve powerful vested interests. “It is … the red thread that runs through the history of the last three decades. It is how we had deregulation, financialization of the economy, the Wall Street bust, the erosion or our civil liberties and perpetual war,” Lofgren tells Bill…”—-
“…Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an “establishment.” All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State’s protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude. [2]
How did I come to write an analysis of the Deep State, and why am I equipped to write it? As a congressional staff member for 28 years specializing in national security and possessing a top secret security clearance, I was at least on the fringes of the world I am describing, if neither totally in it by virtue of full membership nor of it by psychological disposition…
…
….The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street. All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress. Also included are a handful of vital federal trial courts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia and the Southern District of Manhattan, where sensitive proceedings in national security cases are conducted. The final government component (and possibly last in precedence among the formal branches of government established by the Constitution) is a kind of rump Congress consisting of the congressional leadership and some (but not all) of the members of the defense and intelligence committees. The rest of Congress, normally so fractious and partisan, is mostly only intermittently aware of the Deep State and when required usually submits to a few well-chosen words from the State’s emissaries.
..”
Bill Moyers:http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/Well the RT quote was a narrow quote about Flynn. Not all the other stuff. One thing at a time. WHY is it a ‘crime’ for Flynn to talk to a Russian ambassador about policies? Trump had been elected, i believe, but hadnt taken office. Now in this vast-wasteland of a country, why in the world is THAT a crime?
I’m not talking about the lying. I’m talking about the terrible ‘crime’ that Flynn perpetrated — ie, talking to a russian ambassador about policies.
Seems like a witch hunt to me, BT. And i loathe Flynn.
w
vWV, as a lawyer, you obviously know a thousand times more than I ever will about stuff like this, the plea deals, etc. etc. But it appears to me that Flynn got off relatively easy.
Good summary here from the lawfareblog folks ( links/sources on the site) . . .
https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-plea-quick-and-dirty-analysis
Excerpt:
The news that former national security adviser Michael Flynn has reached a cooperation and plea deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller could not come as less of a surprise. Reports of Flynn’s bizarre behavior across a wide spectrum of areas began trickling out even before his tenure as national security adviser ended after only 24 days. These behaviors raised a raft of substantial criminal law questions that have been a matter of open speculation and reporting for months. His problems include, among other things, an alleged kidnapping plot, a plan to build nuclear power plants all over the Middle East, alleged violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) involving at least two different countries, and apparent false statements to the FBI. In light of the scope and range of the activity that reputable news organizations have attributed to Flynn, it is no surprise that he has agreed to cooperate with Mueller in exchange for leniency.
The surprising thing about the plea agreement and the stipulated facts underlying it is how narrow they are. There’s no whiff of the alleged Fethullah Gulen kidnapping talks. Flynn has escaped FARA and influence-peddling charges. And he has been allowed to plead to a single count of lying to the FBI. The factual stipulation is also narrow. It involves lies to the FBI on two broad matters and lies on Flynn’s belated FARA filings on another issue. If a tenth of the allegations against Flynn are true and provable, he has gotten a very good deal from Mueller.
The narrowness gives a superficial plausibility to the White House’s reaction to the plea. Ty Cobb, the president’s ever-confident attorney, said in a statement: “The false statements involved mirror the false statements [by Flynn] to White House officials which resulted in his resignation in February of this year. Nothing about the guilty plea or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn.” Cobb reads Friday’s events as an indication that Mueller is “moving with all deliberate speed and clears the way for a prompt and reasonable conclusion” of the investigation.
This is very likely not an accurate assessment of the situation. If Mueller were prepared to settle the Flynn matter on the basis of single-count plea to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, he was almost certainly prepared to charge a great deal more. Moreover, we can infer from the fact that Flynn accepted the plea deal that he and his counsel were concerned about the degree of jeopardy, both for Flynn and for his son, related to other charges. The deal, in other words, reflects the strength of Mueller’s hand against Flynn.
==============
Well that article just looked like it was full of wild speculations to me, BT. He is only actually charged with one thing. Lying to the FBI. Thats it. The rest of those paragraphs were full of speculation.
As to the actual charge of lying — yes, he lied. And thats why he plead guilty. But my thing is — what did he lie about? Well he lied about talking a russian ambassador. About policy. He talked to a russian ambassador about policies.
Now, i agree with RT — so what.
Granted, i havent spent any time studying this (nor do i intend to) but my cursory, intuitive take on this is — the deep-state is very very selective about who it goes after. I mean does anyone really think people-in-Flynns-position didnt/dont talk to Israeli Ambassadors all the time? Saudi ambassadors? Etc.
I think basically this comes down to the Capone gang going after the Luciano gang.
w
vshakesp:https://www.nosweatshakespeare.com/resources/shakespeare-facts/
“…William Shakespeare Facts: 7
There are more than 80 variations recorded for the spelling of Shakespeare’s name. In the few original signatures that have survived, Shakespeare spelt his name “Willm Shaksp,” “William Shakespe,” “Wm Shakspe,” “William Shakspere,” ”Willm Shakspere,” and “William Shakspeare”. There are no records of him ever having spelt it “William Shakespeare”, as we know him today.”“…William Shakespeare Facts: 14
Sometime after his unsuccessful application to become a gentleman, Shakespeare took his father to the College of Arms to secure their own Shakespeare family crest. The crest was a yellow spear on a yellow shield, with the Latin inscription “Non Sans Droict”, or “Not without Right”.William Shakespeare Facts: 36
The moons of Uranus were originally named in 1852 after magical spirits from English literature. The International Astronomy Union subsequently developed the convention to name all further moons of Uranus (of which there are 27) after characters in Shakespeare’s plays or Alexander Pope’s The Rape of the Lock.
