Is the Deep State Attempting a Coup?

Keeping it secret?

Mueller doesn't leak anything

 

When did you think Managers of Intel Agencies were suppose to be partisan with politics?


As for Flynn from......@Zorro


From McCarthy on March 3:
In the weeks prior to June 2016, the FBI did a preliminary investigation, apparently based on concerns about a server at Trump Tower that allegedly had some connection to Russian financial institutions. Even if there were such a connection, it is not a crime to do business with Russian banks — lots of Americans do. It should come as no surprise, then, that the FBI found no impropriety and did not proceed with a criminal investigation.

What is surprising, though, is that the case was not closed down. Instead, the Obama Justice Department decided to pursue the matter as a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In June 2016, it sought the FISA court’s permission to conduct surveillance on a number of Trump associates — and perhaps even Trump himself. It has been reported that Trump was “named” in the application, but it is not publicly known whether he (a) was named as a proposed wiretap target, or
(b) was just mentioned in passing in the application.

Understand the significance of this: Only the Justice Department litigates before the FISA court; this was not some rogue investigators; this was a high level of Obama’s Justice Department — the same institution that, at that very moment, was whitewashing the Clinton e-mail scandal. And when Justice seeks FISA surveillance authority, it is essentially telling that court that there is probable cause to believe that the targets have acted as agents of a foreign power — that’s the only basis for getting a FISA warrant. In this instance, the FISA court apparently found the Obama Justice Department’s presentation to be so weak that it refused to authorize the surveillance.

That is telling, because the FISA court is generally very accommodating of government surveillance requests. Unwilling to take no for an answer, the Obama Justice Department came back to the FISA court in October — i.e., in the stretch run of the presidential campaign. According to various reports (and mind you, FISA applications are classified, so the leaks are illegal), the October application was much narrower than the earlier one and did not mention Donald Trump. The FISA Court granted this application, and for all we know the investigation is continuing.

McCarthy's bombshell was ignored by the press even though reporters at the New York Times had hinted six weeks earlier that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower.

It reported this on January 20: "Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides." .....snip~

Did you forget Susan Rice was busted out and lying about unmasking people. I'll bet you believed her lame excuse about it being routine. Didn't you.

 

who here knows why lesh is wrong twice? I like to see who the astute people are.

 

A 'struggle to the death"? Your threat that "their own well being will be in peril"? Are you threatening assassination or a riot?

Yes, Obama was weak but a "Kenyan usurper"? No. Clinton's are corrupt but a "Crime Syndicate"? No. If they were, they'd still be in power.

First, Trump is innocent of collusion because he's a buffoon. His sons and SIL, not so much.

Second, if you think our entire military and a bunch of pencil-necked paper-pushers are a threat to American voters, you should reconsider. If you want to take them all down, good luck because I suspect most American voters will side with them before you.

 

Who the hell is McCarthy and why would anyone care what he said (much less bold it)?

You're defending Flynn. The guy is corrupt to the core. He was a paid agent of a foreign power WHILE sitting as the National Security Director. He was at that time implicated in a plot to kidnap a foreign national from American soil in the interest of that country for a fee of what...15 million dollars?

He was caught texting a crony (six minutes into Trump's inauguration) that sanctions were going to be lifted and that could go ahead with a plan to partner with Russian interests to build 45 nuclear reactors in the Middle East.

Are you serious?

 

You tell us...MMMMkay?

 

I actually agree with all of that with the exception of letting Trump off the hook based on his "buffoonery"

 

I was trying to be nice. He's an idiotic old man. ****ing clueless. His best skill is his ability to Tweet at the same time he's taking a dump.

 

~~~~
I have never included our military as you claim and as far as being against the military, I served honorably and proudly alongside with my brothers in the military. I speak of those Federal employee bureaucrats ensconced in D.C.
As far as Obama is concerned, in the coming years we will learn the truth about him.
Most international crime syndicates sooner or later come to an end.

 

so you dont know? funny

 

Military are "federal employees". I'm a retired Federal officer, appointed by Congress. Do you know why Stolen Valor asshats don't claim to be officers? Because it's a crime to impersonate a Federal officer. How can "the Deep State" survive without the military? Personally, I think it's all bullshit just like those who claim any other large group functions like a single entity be it "the government" or "the UN".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912
Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

 

I've heard a few shock jocks say that. But we have legal processes that are simply being followed.

 

If "legal processes" are being followed, then where is COMEY'S INDICTMENT?"

Comey testified UNDER OATH that he broke laws far worse than lying to the FBI.

Steve

 

I hear some shock jocks say that too. I will let the process,work....

 

That sounds fine to me. More Dems will be tossed out of office in upcoming elections in the future. Dems are at 1929 levels of power now, and are now shooting for 1865 levels of power. HA!

The American people were sick and tired of this sort of crap when the last election took place in 2016.

Steve

 

~~~~~
So are you claiming that I did not serve in the military?

 

Negative. Are you claiming anything I've written is wrong?

 

$25 donation to the forum bet that the Republicans lose seats in November. Are you game?

 

~~~~
Then why are we finding that many within the Federal Civil Service have violated their oath by placing political affiliation and ideology before loyalty to America and the U.S. Constitution? As exampled by those Civil Service employees exposed within the EPA, IRS, CIA and now the DoJ and FBI?

 

I won't give a dime to this forum and that means making you donate as well, and I'm sure the mods know why. We've had "a few conversations" about it.

Steve

 

Translation: I won't bet because you and I both know you'd win. The Republicans will take an ass-beating in November. How badly is anyone's guess.

No worries, Steve.

 

Yet they are part of the system. You can't logically spread a conspiracy theory about "the Deep State" much less a coup, without the military.

 

Of course I'll win. Just look at the history. Dems have been losing elections SINCE 2010 and they keep doubling down on the very things that have caused them to lose elections. Instead of 1929 levels of power, dems are shooting for 1865 levels of power. Can't change even if they tried.

Steve

 

He got busted, is all; the rest of Mueller's team are each a Strozk in their own way. If you are so blinded by partisanship that you lose all sight of what the process is supposed to look like, I guess I'm sorry for you.

 

Since 2010? How old are you to think that’s ancient history? So you think the Dems will lose in November, but you don’t want to bet $25 on it because the winnings would go to this forum? What do you call a person who feels they are entitled to use the services of something but never want to pay for it even if it’s another person offering to pay?