Are we at risk of a Deep State rebellion?

[Paul Anthony]

This might seem off-topic. I thought about starting another thread, but this is about truth and politics. But more than that, it is about maintaining the proper methodology a democratic republic requires. Some may think the ends justify the means. I've been guilty of that line of reasoning myself at times.

http://theweek.com/articles/680068/americas-spies-anonymously-took-down-michael-flynn-that-deeply-worrying

What do you think?

[Braininvat]

I don't know yet if I should be worried or not, regarding the leakage addressed in Paul's link above. Government ops are supposed to use a chain of command, so that stuff like Flynn transcripts are supposed to land on some analyst's desk, then the analyst may send it to a supervisor who may pass it along to a congressman who handles intel stuff, then a committee figures out a course of action on the intel. Then the committee presents that to congress. Something like that, right?

I suppose it depends on what level of Trump paranoia is correct. It's clear that some ops thought, geez, Congress is in a state of paralysis right now, so let's skip all that. It's clear that's not how it's done in DC or, really, anywhere. What's not clear is how much of the intel community are in league against the administration. Trump has certainly done his share of things to piss them off. He seems like a loose cannon to a lot of career diplomats and intelligence people, and many must feel he can't be trusted with sensitive information. There is a constant drumbeat from various quarters of doubt for Trump's competence.

In terms of truth, it is definitely getting harder for people to pretend they didn't know certain things. Plausible deniability is getting hard to come by. It's pretty fascinating to watch!

So far, I am leaning towards the notion that transparency is usually a good thing, even if some rules get broken. Depends on how badly they get broken, I know, and I agree with the article's author that we don't want rogue agents or cadres "weaponizing" information.

Louis Brandeis, a great American jurist, said "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

[d30]

This might seem off-topic. I thought about starting another thread, but this is about truth and politics. But more than that, it is about maintaining the proper methodology a democratic republic requires. Some may think the ends justify the means. I've been guilty of that line of reasoning myself at times.

http://theweek.com/articles/680068/americas-spies-anonymously-took-down-michael-flynn-that-deeply-worrying

What do you think?

1 Yes. I'd like to see this vetted by our posters. This is enormously important to America, all would-be democracies.

2. Yes, it is a different thread, and I propose you title the thread "Deep state acting independently."

3. Please be sure to start the new thread off, in your OP (opening post) with an inclusion of the link to the op-ed in The Week magazine, which is conveniently just above in the quote of your post, so all can read it for a good basic grasp of the import of this issue I'd not been aware of till I read that Web page.

4. Appreciate this post of yours, and hope thoughts by our peers here will help clarify the perplexing issue it informs us of: should unelected agents in a government be able to independently expose information about a citizen, even one who is potentially of great harm to the country, or do we have a serious problem of disorder in our democracy (now added to all the others such as the cost of election campaigns)? Another e.g.: "Thou shalt not kill," but if you could get to Hitler in his childhood, should you kill him to save 40 or 50 million lives, injuries, and untold billions in global destruction?

[Braininvat]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/world/americas/deep-state-leaks-trump.html

Useful look at the Deep State, here and abroad, and where we might be headed.

[vivian maxine]

If Michael Flynn's actions are not allowed to be anonymous, why should those of "anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats" be anonymous? Instead of leaking information from behind an invisible cloak, they should be required to speak out plainly and show their faces.

[Braininvat]

You would think so, but remember that journalism sometimes benefits from an anonymous insider, like "Deep Throat" and the Watergate scandal. People have jobs they need to keep, bills to pay, children to feed, so they may need anonymity for purely practical reasons of survival. Not everyone who has inside information to leak is prepared to fall on their sword when they do so. If leaks are more beneficial than harmful, then the way to foster them is to preserve the option of anonymity as a protection from a vengeful and, in some cases, criminal reprisal.

[vivian maxine]

You would think so, but remember that journalism sometimes benefits from an anonymous insider, like "Deep Throat" and the Watergate scandal. People have jobs they need to keep, bills to pay, children to feed, so they may need anonymity for purely practical reasons of survival. Not everyone who has inside information to leak is prepared to fall on their sword when they do so. If leaks are more beneficial than harmful, then the way to foster them is to preserve the option of anonymity as a protection from a vengeful and, in some cases, criminal reprisal.

I know you're right but wait until someone accuses you of something and you ask to face your accuser. Bad when you get a "no".

Hard to decide some things, isn't it. Still, those intelligences offices are our government. Surely we should be allowed to know they are accusing us from behind the scenes.

[d30]

You would think so, but remember that journalism sometimes benefits from an anonymous insider, like "Deep Throat" and the Watergate scandal. People have jobs they need to keep, bills to pay, children to feed, so they may need anonymity for purely practical reasons of survival. Not everyone who has inside information to leak is prepared to fall on their sword when they do so. If leaks are more beneficial than harmful, then the way to foster them is to preserve the option of anonymity as a protection from a vengeful and, in some cases, criminal reprisal.

Indeed: Isn't that the point of the secret ballot, i.e., anonymous voting in elections.

Maxine, isn't it okay to cheat if you're dealing with cheaters? Okay to lie when you're dealing with liars? Kill if about to be killed. That's called "justifiable homicide." So isn't there such a thing as justifiable anonymity? It "levels the playing field." Balances the two opposing sides. Neither has an unfair advantage.

If you deal with chronic liars, deceivers, in a civilized way - honest, straightforward, forthcoming, you put yourself at a severe disadvantage, as Braininvat pointed out. It's like standing out in the open in a field that is lion's territory.

You have to be aware of the context you're in. In civil circumstances, sure, be civil. But not in jungle circumstances. In a predominantly civil society, sure, the intelligence community or the like can come out in the open with facts. Not in today's America.

In one short phrase: "situational ethics."

We can hope that the intelligence community leakers have good, patriotic intentions, assessed a serious threat to national security, and are acting, behaving, for the good of, the salvation of,` democracy and America, in a way they deemed therefore justifiable - in a presently uncivilized situation, wherein "kill or be killed."

[vivian maxine]

Can't argue with that, d30. I can think of the arguments but they don't hold up in real life. Trouble is they can jail us for doing the things they do with impunity. :-(

[Paul Anthony]

We can hope that the intelligence community leakers have good, patriotic intentions, assessed a serious threat to national security, and are acting, behaving, for the good of, the salvation of,` democracy and America, in a way they deemed therefore justifiable - in a presently uncivilized situation, wherein "kill or be killed."

But isn't that the problem? How do we know the leakers have "good, patriotic intentions"? What if they have an agenda that is good for them but bad for the rest of us? How can we know the truth in a post-truth world?

Trump challenged the status quo. Many don't believe he really meant it, but some do. Those who are in positions of power do not sit idly by while their power is threatened. "Draining the swamp" was vague enough that it could mean reducing the influence of Wall Street and the bankers (not likely) or reducing the power of the military-intelligence complex that Eisenhower warned us about so many years ago (he called it the "military-industrial complex"). Or it could mean reducing the power of bureaucrats to pass regulations that have the effect of laws, even though they are not laws passed by our elected representatives in Congress.

All of those power centers make up the "Deep State". Successful politicians do not threaten them. For too long, it hasn't mattered to them who was President. Bush went to war, increased the power of the intelligence community with the Patriot Act and bailed out Wall Street. He was never a threat. Obama focused on help for a variety of oppressed minority groups, but he didn't challenge the Deep State.

Trump isn't playing ball. I can't tell if he is aware of the powers lined up against him and is trying to do the right thing, or if he is oblivious to what he has stirred up and is just blundering along. It doesn't matter. The hornet's nest has been poked and they will attack.

[wolfhnd]

Mike Pence is Trumps security ace in the hole so they can't kill him :-)

Seriously I have no idea what to make of the goings on in Washington. I'm hoping but not that much that people who hide in the shadows will be exposed by their hatred of Trump. I have watched a few ex intelligence people and they say that most government agencies are as divided as the rest of the country and that the ones who want the swamp drained are typically lower level people who will need time to expose their bosses. It is time I think to clean house in many agencies and unfortunately some good people will get hurt along the way. People who have made government a career are for the first time in their lives likely afraid that they do not have a secure job. That alone would produce a lot of discontent and rebellion.

I would like to see the NSA gone and it's responsibilities returned to the FBI. The CIA has proven useless and dangerous and should probably be shut down as well, perhaps the military can take over their responsibilities. All the other agencies are full of incompetence and should be rebuilt and streamlined. None of which is going to happen because most Americans are too busy fornicating and smoking dope to really care.

[d30]

We can hope that the intelligence community leakers have good, patriotic intentions, assessed a serious threat to national security, and are acting, behaving, for the good of, the salvation of,` democracy and America, in a way they deemed therefore justifiable - in a presently uncivilized situation, wherein "kill or be killed."

But isn't that the problem? How do we know the leakers have "good, patriotic intentions"? What if they have an agenda that is good for them but bad for the rest of us? How can we know the truth in a post-truth world?

No, it isn't the problem. Deep state, and post-truth, are symptoms of the problem. We're experiencing this symptom - government in disorder if not on the brink of chaos - because we lack the strong civic sector a democracy must have to function stably - an informed, well educated and actively watchdogging populace - we the people - that would not have allowed what got us into this precarious condition, which primarily includes:

- an industrial and economic system that changed the one-parent-working family into a two-parents-working family, both now working a 40-hour workweek (that should have shrunk to 30 hours by 1980, and 20 hours today), leaving them not even enough time to properly raise their children, let alone time for democracy-essential civic and community participation; not to even think of maybe some time left over to relax and enjoy life a bit themselves;

- a severely money-contaminated election-campaign system;

- failure of parents, schools and media, still, to teach the lessons of civics and history to new generations;

- predominantly one-sidedly private-sector-profiteer control of media thus devoid of poli-socio-economic lessons such as the absence of severe economic instability for ~70 years when the system was far more fairly wealth-distributing Keynesian economics; media instead replete with long chronically down-dumbing, trivial and superficial inanity including "news" programs increasingly geared to ratings (entertainment) instead of a healthy portion of interestingly produced socio-political and economic documentaries of substance that, always far too few, gradually, inevitably, disappeared from prime time TV;

- abolition of the FCC Fairness Doctrine by Reagan in 1987, which was meant to ensure that audiences of any station get balanced information (preventing poli-social polarization), that should not only still be in force in radio and TV but on the Internet, leaving us with a possibly democracy-fatally divided populace politically, socially and culturally so alienated and still increasingly so, that the cooperation and conciliation essential to democracy seems lost.

The symptom this thread is addressing - an independently acting deep state is a result of all that, as was the election of a strictly private-sector person to run our vitally important public-sector, mishandling so much, even to the extent of disrupting, polarizing, even the crucial-to-national-security relationship of his Executive Branch of government with its own military-security complex.

That, a lot like all the rest we've seen so far, appears to be only a hint of upheaval in all facets of America on the way. Too few seem to realize the widespread devastation, socially, economically, medically, environmentally, etc., the mass disruption and ruination of lives, that seems indicated by what we've seen so far.

[d30]

Mike Pence is Trumps security ace in the hole so they can't kill him :-)

Who is "they"? The neo-con Congress would like nothing better than to have one of their truly own in the Oval Office. Now with no opposition in White House or House and Senate, they could finish wrecking America in no time.

All the other agencies are full of incompetence and should be rebuilt and streamlined.

"All"? "full"? I'm surprised in that coming from you. So unscientific.

None of which is going to happen because most Americans are too busy fornicating and smoking dope to really care.

Please see how they got that way, would you, in my post directly above. You seem to be blaming them personally.

[wolfhnd]

There is just not enough information available to know who is doing what.

[Braininvat]

But isn't that the problem? How do we know the leakers have "good, patriotic intentions"? What if they have an agenda that is good for them but bad for the rest of us? How can we know the truth in a post-truth world?

- PaulAnthony

It's a good question, and my answer is a speculative suggestion that we may judge the leakers by the results that we, as a nation, derive from the leaks. Michael Flynn, a man grossly incompetent for the NSC position, was dumped. And we are a step closer to getting an investigation, sorely needed, of Putin's possible involvement in a plot to disrupt our democracy and sovereignty, and the President's role, if any. Those are good results. Especially when so few in the President's party seem willing to question anything he does. Is John McCain the last remaining Republican with some spine and integrity?

[Paul Anthony]

It's a good question, and my answer is a speculative suggestion that we may judge the leakers by the results that we, as a nation, derive from the leaks. Michael Flynn, a man grossly incompetent for the NSC position, was dumped. And we are a step closer to getting an investigation, sorely needed, of Putin's possible involvement in a plot to disrupt our democracy and sovereignty, and the President's role, if any. Those are good results. Especially when so few in the President's party seem willing to question anything he does. Is John McCain the last remaining Republican with some spine and integrity?

Given how frequently we are lied to by the media and various factions of the government, I'm not convinced "it's the Russians" isn't a lie, too. When the DNC leaks hurt the Dems we were told to ignore the content of the emails and focus on the crime of leaking them. This deflection was possible because the thought of Russia interfering in our election was a greater travesty than the truth about the DNC. Now, Trump is telling us that leaks from within our own government is a greater travesty than the content of the leaks. Sounds familiar.

Liberals (and closet liberals like John McCain and Lindsey Graham) bought into the diversion about the Russians. Now, Trump supporters will follow the diversion narrative to defend Trump & Company.

The difference, though, is these leaks are not confirmed. The most recent, that Trump plans to use National Guard troops to round up illegals, has not only been denied by the WH but also by ICE. A rumor is not the same as an email.

Besides, I am not shocked that a foreign government would attempt to influence our elections. Our own government has been interfering in other nations for decades. Interference from within our own government troubles me more.

[Braininvat]

I tend not to be partisan about leaks. That is to say, I like leakage in all its myriad forms because without it I clearly have no f-ing idea what our government is doing. And they are supposed to be working for me. I had no problem with the DNC leaks and was glad to see some of the Democrat dirty laundry. I would rather just have everything leak equally, rather than worry about the criminality of it. The more leaks we have, the better we can get at confirming the genuine and rejecting the bogus (like the ridiculous National Guard thing).

The analogy I have is me and the wife. I've watched commercial broadcast tv for years. She didn't own a tv and only saw tv series on DVD. So now that we sometimes watch tv together, when a commercial comes on, I instantly recognize it as nonsense, the same old formulas, and tune it out. She, lacking a psychological "immune system," watches them, almost spellbound. Fortunately, she has a brain, so gradually she's starting to develop some critical distance - "That car didn't get up there by itself, did it? They must have dropped it there with a helicopter! Ha!"

Not saying there aren't truly criminal acts of leakage. Exposing a deep undercover intelligence agent in a dangerous foreign location, not cool. Strategic secrets need to stay that way, in the interest of national security. With the exception of a few anarchists, most would agree on that.

[wolfhnd]

If you think the Russian did it you would have to think Julian Paul Assange is an idiot or a Russian spy. Both conclusions are ridiculous. The Russian did it narrative is nothing more than a coverup of Clinton's and Obama's incompetence and the incompetence or manipulations of the same intelligence agencies that gave us the WMD fiasco. Then we have that idiot John Podesta and his kiddie pornography.

We could discuss why the media goes along with the narrative but honestly why bother. What is clear is that the globalist are getting desperate.

[d30]

Besides, I am not shocked that a foreign government would attempt to influence our elections. Our own government has been interfering in other nations for decades. Interference from within our own government troubles me more.

According to the banner headline at the bottom of the screen on CNN yesterday or day before, "Trump aides in continuous contact with Soviet agents during the campaign." (maybe not verbatim, but this NYT article gives verification. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?_r=0)

So, when you say "Interference from within our own government troubles me more," are you saying U.S. intelligence agencies should not have interfered in this apparent collusion by Trump and/or his staff with Putin and/or his agents, Putin having turned Russia back into a totalitarian nation, reportedly murderously censoring the press, those and other of his opponents winding up in jail or dead, citizens afraid to speak out again, etc.?

This reported Trump-people/Putin-people collusion is of great gravity to U.S. national security, and as Braininvat said, if not for our intelligence people's leaks, how would we have even known such egregious seeming treason threatening us all has been going on?

I mean, what it seems like you're saying is that there should have been no U.S. intelligence interference with Russia's interference in our election.

[Paul Anthony]

According to the banner headline at the bottom of the screen on CNN yesterday or day before, "Trump aides in continuous contact with Soviet agents during the campaign." (maybe not verbatim, but this NYT article gives verification. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?_r=0)

So, when you say "Interference from within our own government troubles me more," are you saying U.S. intelligence agencies should not have interfered in this apparent collusion by Trump and/or his staff with Putin and/or his agents, Putin having turned Russia back into a totalitarian nation, reportedly murderously censoring the press, those and other of his opponents winding up in jail or dead, citizens afraid to speak out again, etc.?

This reported Trump-people/Putin-people collusion is of great gravity to U.S. national security, and as Braininvat said, if not for our intelligence people's leaks, how would we have even known such egregious seeming treason threatening us all has been going on?

I mean, what it seems like you're saying is that there should have been no U.S. intelligence interference with Russia's interference in our election.

Don't believe everything you read. Some of Trump's people have business dealings in Russia. That could be why they are in "continuous contact" with other business people in Russia. "Soviet Agents" have not been named by the media. They could just be Russian businessmen.

This sort of headline is intended to create a sense of misbehavior. Someone should tell those "investigative reporters" at CNN that no one in Russia has been a "Soviet" since the fall of the USSR. :)

[wolfhnd]

Here is some "truths" that should make you question the leaky intelligence sector.

Clinton actually did manipulated the DNC we have proof, why has no similar proof emerged in the alleged Trump collusion? It doesn't even really matter what the source was it's the proof of wrong doing that matters not unsubstantiated accusations.

Then there are the other "truths" that have never been disputed that tarnishes the intelligence community and media because they never spoke out about them. There is the Uranium One deal in which a Canadian firm that was on its way to controlling half of U.S. uranium production was given control by Putin and Clinton approved that deal. The Clinton foundation received tens of millions of dollars to it's Canadian branch that were not reported by the foundation. This violated Secretary of State Clinton’s memorandum of agreement with the Obama. Then there is the half a million dollars Bill Clinton personally collected for a speech made at RenCap that has ex-KGB employees associate with Putin. Here are some quotes from Secretary of States Clinton's husband on Putin, “our good friend”, “very smart”, “kept his word on all the deals we made”.

Why wouldn't the intelligence community want to deflect attention away from it's collusion and coverup of Clinton's misconduct now that Trump has access to proof?

The only thing that makes you wonder if Trump is hiding something is the fact he is not pushing to have Clinton investigated.

[Forest_Dump]

A couple of points strike me as odd. First on the topic of secrecy, it is completely unrealistic to expect that any 20th century or later government doesn't or shouldn't keep secrets. (Okay and as far back in history as there is a recorded history.) Might start with a read of "A Man Called Intrepid" for the WW2 case but there are many more, of course. Do we really want just anyone to be able to browse through the CDC data files just because they are publicly funded? We know all kinds of companies get tax dollars to do product development but manage to keep the results as proprietary knowledge but, on the other hand, have no compunctions about selling products to foreign companies or countries who then can do reverse engineering to create copies and save having to do their own research (certainly a problem when it comes to things like weapons.) On the other hand, not that long ago there was a well-known case where the FBI (?) had massive problems trying to hack into a suspected terrorist's iPhone to chase down terrorism-related leads because the company didn't want to give away the keys to personal security. I could imagine the reaction if it turned out that the iPhone in question did have information that could have prevented another 9/11.

On another tpic, I did also wonder at what point someone might well become above the law. Without intending to make any assertions about Trump, suppose, and I do mean this entirely hypothetically, just suppose Trump or any other President did have something in his past that Russia (China? ISIS? you take your pick) could successfully blackmail him over. Would it even be treaon with a President if he decided to open up all the books for a foreign country, change national policy, etc? At this point, someone like Trump could pretty much do that as much as he wanted to just because the GOP (who probably wouldn't be getting all the "truth" anyway) may not have the power to stop him.

[Paul Anthony]

On another tpic, I did also wonder at what point someone might well become above the law. Without intending to make any assertions about Trump, suppose, and I do mean this entirely hypothetically, just suppose Trump or any other President did have something in his past that Russia (China? ISIS? you take your pick) could successfully blackmail him over. Would it even be treaon with a President if he decided to open up all the books for a foreign country, change national policy, etc? At this point, someone like Trump could pretty much do that as much as he wanted to just because the GOP (who probably wouldn't be getting all the "truth" anyway) may not have the power to stop him.

I didn't expect you to be as paranoid as the many people who are convinced the a Trump Presidency means the end of the world as we know it.

The funny thing is, many people thought the same thing when Obama was elected. And other people thought the same thing during George W. Bush's reign.

But the truth is, Presidents don't "reign". They are not monarchs. They are not all that powerful.

Even if there was a possibility of Trump being compromised AND able to surrender the nation to a foreign power, shouldn't you have been just as fearful with a Clinton presidency, given her reliance on foreign governments for the funding of the Clinton Foundation?

If you're going to be paranoid at least be non-partisan about it. :)

[d30]

I mean, what it seems like you're saying is that there should have been no U.S. intelligence interference with Russia's interference in our election.

Don't believe everything you read. Some of Trump's people have business dealings in Russia. That could be why they are in "continuous contact" with other business people in Russia. "Soviet Agents" have not been named by the media. They could just be Russian businessmen.

This sort of headline is intended to create a sense of misbehavior. Someone should tell those "investigative reporters" at CNN that no one in Russia has been a "Soviet" since the fall of the USSR. :)

It might as well be. By many accounts conditions in Russia are substantially back to the way they were in the Soviet Union - state reprisals against, even murders of, challengers of Putin - journalists, political opponents, election opponents, dissenters. Maybe unawareness of this on your part seemingly (based on what you say above) is why you express no dismay about Putin's apparent meddling with our election.

But the point I'd like to hear from you about is why you never expressed any concern about the leaks of Clinton's emails (even after it was revealed that it was done by unfriendly foreigners), but now you are dismayed about leaks because they are leaks about Trump. And you speak directly above about need to be non-partisan.

No concern about violation of Clinton, even though by foreigners.
Yet concern about violation of Trump, even though by our own people.
Trump has been cited for exactly that same double standard on said leaks.

It doesn't appear you would have started this thread, raised this issue at all, if US intelligence had publicized information harmful to Clinton instead. After all, you didn't protest, e.g., when the FBI Director leaked (in effect) a new round of investigation on Clinton around a week before the election, based on more emails, which turned out to have nothing of importance, but spread new suspicion to Americans about Clinton just before said election.

Did not that amount to "deep state rebellion" too - an intelligence-community official acting against a political figure (Clinton) without permission from his commander in chief (Obama)?

[wolfhnd]

There is nothing wrong with being a little paranoid but we have to keep things relative. In the case of Trump it is a question of if his views are relatively more in touch with reality or is it the propaganda from the deep state that reflex reality.

The deep state is not just government officials and bureaucrats or intelligence agencies it is a complex of vested interest that are being threatened. The real issue is how anti liberal the liberal establishment has become. After years of having are institutions taken over by people that do not believe in liberal democracy it comes as no surprise to me that intellectuals are in a state of denial about the state of world affairs.

Here is a video made by an average british guy that discusses the issues in a way that makes sense. A say average because it is clear that when we say deep state we mean people who believe they alone deserve to set the course of history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1ulkykn7jc

I may be a bit biased because the one thing I agree with this guy on is that Marxism is the opiate of the intellectual class. It is religious in every way other than in spirituality and requires faith in what has repeatedly proven to be unworkable.

[Braininvat]

For those who prefer a text summary, can you describe the video content? Though I consider Pewdiepie to be uninteresting in almost every way, I suspect that some members may have an aversion to watching a video about someone who thinks anti-Semitic jokes are "entertainment." I get that he believes he is not anti-Semitic (whatever, Swedish dude), but it's also clear he doesn't belong to an ethnicity that's been on the receiving end of "jokes" for many centuries and is pretty much tone deaf on the whole matter.

Paul, re your comment to D30:

Even if there was a possibility of Trump being compromised AND able to surrender the nation to a foreign power, shouldn't you have been just as fearful with a Clinton presidency, given her reliance on foreign governments for the funding of the Clinton Foundation?

If you're going to be paranoid at least be non-partisan about it. :)

Your example was phrased in a somewhat partisan manner, too. Clinton divested from the CF, precisely to avoid any taint of foreign influence peddling, and independent auditors of the CF gave it the highest ratings in terms of ethical handling of donations. This seems on quite a different level of concern from Trump's many unsavory business dealings, everything from Trump University to the Taj casino to Deutschebank to steering black people away from his early real estate holdings. Whatever his Russian connections, it's hardly paranoia to have concern over a President who is so unafraid of sleazy dealings. I'm a moderate who has voted for Republicans at the state level, and I am hardly waving a foam finger here.

[Paul Anthony]

Your example was phrased in a somewhat partisan manner, too. Clinton divested from the CF, precisely to avoid any taint of foreign influence peddling, and independent auditors of the CF gave it the highest ratings in terms of ethical handling of donations.

Clinton promised to divest from the CF IF she was elected. She did not separate herself from a charity that accepted massive contributions from such stellar human rights nations as Saudi Arabia, while claiming to be a supporter of women's rights. After she lost the election, the flow of donations dried up. Make of that what you will. :)

d30,

"No concern about violation of Clinton, even though by foreigners." That has not yet been proven. When/if it is, I'll be just as upset as you are. I have no way of knowing what is true and what is not. The timing of the claim that the "Russians did it", claims made by the DNC long before any evidence could possibly have been collected, leads me to suspect it to be false. An investigation is justified. I should like to hear the results.

The DNC email leaks and the Trump memo leaks differ in one important way. Trump is a sitting President. Leaks, especially if not true, have the ability to interfere with the proper operation of government. I consider that much more serious than the possibility of interfering with an election process.

It's not partisan. Yes, I do not like Clinton, but I didn't vote for Trump, either. Neither was my preference for President. I also didn't vote for Obama, but if these leaks had occurred during his presidency I would be just as concerned.

There is a sort of unwritten rule in politics. During a campaign there is a high tolerance for mudslinging and lying, but once the voting is over we respect the office of the Presidency even if we don't respect the person occupying it. To do otherwise is to undermine the democratic principles that govern us.

[Forest_Dump]

There is a sort of unwritten rule in politics. During a campaign there is a high tolerance for mudslinging and lying, but once the voting is over we respect the office of the Presidency even if we don't respect the person occupying it. To do otherwise is to undermine the democratic principles that govern us.

Well I am trying to be as nonpartisan as you Paul and I can appreciate and agree with current attempt to swing to a more theoretical angle. However, as I have noted several times in the past, the "theoretical angle" is based on a constitution, etc., drawn up 240 years ago by some guys who might have been pretty smart for the time but couldn't possibly have foreseen the events and all we have learned from the time since or some of the many processes at work today both domestically and around the world. Additionally, as others such as Wlfhnd have noted, theory has to be grounded in actualities and I think it is safe to say we are seeing some unique things going on today. So, although I initially said I wished to avoid being too specific about Trump and lean towards a hypothetical scenario that certainly could be applied equally well if Clinton had been elected and also had Dems controlling both the Congress and Senate, I think the specifics of Trump should also be weighed. In particular, I absolutely do not think any one individual can possibly hope to run a country like the US anymore but I do think he believes (and has convinced a lot of people) that he can do so as though it was something relartively simple like a multibillion dollar corporation. I don't think Trump necessarily has bad intentions and he might even be a better person than Clinton. But I do think his motivations are suspect (I don't think he is interested in much more than satisfying his own ego and will only enrich himself as a kleptocrat because in his value system he thinks that is his due). And more importantly in many ways, I think his ego and arrogance will lead him to ignore situations, problems and dangers as well as solutions proposed by other experts (many of whom are probably also a lot smarter than him) at his peril and, given the job he holds and the potential lack or weaknesses in safeguards, to the peril of the US and even the world. There are all kinds of potential dangers brewing up from whatever Russia or ISIS, etc., might be up to next, the next global financial crisis, possible environmental problems to even the next ebola outbreak (which could be an order of magnitude worse than the last which was surprisingly worse than any before), to even greater partisan stress domestically and any of these could require a real leader to solve. I don't think Trump has the stuff and given the reputation he has built for himself, even if he had the right stuff, who would believe him in a time when faith in any leader might be absolutely necessary? If this were 1941 and the Japanese were to bomb Pearl Harbour today, how many would shrug it off as fake news?

[Paul Anthony]

If this were 1941 and the Japanese were to bomb Pearl Harbour today, how many would shrug it off as fake news?

Glad you brought up Pearl Harbor - (with or without the British spelling). :)

Rumors abound about how much the US government knew before the attack and if they allowed it happen in order to persuade the American people to enter a war they had no taste for.

Fake news is nothing new.

I share your trepidation regarding Trump's qualifications for the job he has acquired. George W. Bush was also unqualified, and blundered us into a mess in the middle east. I believe Hillary would have exasperated that situation. There is a slim hope Trump will extricate us from that morass with his America First approach. He seems to want a strong military to be used as Reagan did - as a deterrent to war rather than a blunt instrument to be used everywhere at once. But, we'll see...

[Forest_Dump]

Glad you brought up Pearl Harbor - (with or without the British spelling). :)

Rumors abound about how much the US government knew before the attack and if they allowed it happen in order to persuade the American people to enter a war they had no taste for.

Rumours may well abound in some circles but given that nobody in the know then is still alive now I think we can safely conclude that everything that can be said to be known is recorded in the written history books and all the other rumours are of far less weight than all the rumours and speculations you among everyone else are willing to dismiss today. You might as well speculate that the American Revolution was a Marxist conspiracy.

George W. Bush was also unqualified, and blundered us into a mess in the middle east.

The funny thing is you mentioned paranoia earlier and I was most "paranoid about Regan when he was first elected. G. W. Bush was certainly someone I strongly disagreed with and had little respect for but he at least had a competent mentor in his father (who I also didn't like) and was surrounded by other competent people so at least had good advise even if he wasn't necessarily willing to listen to it (e.g. from Colin Powell).

Trump, on the other hand, only has experience (and I will grant talent) for selling himself and making himself rich. He has no demonstrated interest of history in any kind of public service, he is blinded by his own ego and surrounds himself with less competent yes-men and cronies. It also appears that a lot of possible good people he has been choosing are deciding they don't want to work for him. And I don't think there is any argument that he is unwilling to face any kind of reality in what he is doing and what is happening around him.

Has there been ANY past President who, even if you question the reality others point to (and I would agree that CNN, for example, seems almost hysterical on the topic of Trump), has given or allowed such a persistent image of desperation and chaos and STILL feels the need to campaign rather than generate an image of actually having won and being in charge? Even Trump can't seem to get the idea that he beat Hilary and, IMHO, he seems to want to keep her political career alive. If Trump keeps it up, she may well remain a viable candidate in three years and very capable of beating him. Truth be told, even though I definitely still see her as the better choice, I still am surprised at how often Trump (and you) revive her memory rather than let her fade into history.