
The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect - bainsfather
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/
======
devoply
I noticed something similar. In that there is a lot conspiracy theory being
thrown at Trump. In the past the establishment would've kept quiet even if
they knew something. This sort of politics is dangerous and polarizing. But it
seems as if the elite don't know what else to do. Maybe they are hoping they
can impeach him.

~~~
ctvo
Tump's refusal to do things such as releasing tax returns to prove no
conflicts of interests exists fuels the conspiracies, not some political elite
plot to undermine him.

And the conspircy theories are not unique to Trump: Obama had calls of being a
Muslim, born outside of the US and worse. The current alt-right partially
believe in a child trafficking pizza parlor.

~~~
devoply
It was not the political elite calling Obama a Muslim, it was the fringe. This
is different. You could argue that Obama not releasing his Birth Certificate
until 2011 only fueled the fringe, but it was the fringe. In this case the
official opposition is making claims and not backed up by any real evidence.
Just claims made by anonymous sources. I meant I could concoct a document like
that in a few months. Without any real evidence it's really a conspiracy
theory, nothing more. Just because it comes from a former official, does not
mean shit. There have been officials that have mouthed off about conspiracies
before, they are completely ignored.

Anyone has a good reason not to release private documents like your tax
returns if you are doing business. It could be used by numerous sources to
attack you. You don't want to open yourself up to that kind of liability,
ever... just to please some people who don't like you and never will like you.

~~~
ctvo
> It was not the political elite calling Obama a Muslim, it was the fringe.

It included Trump. For years.

> In this case the official opposition is making claims and not backed up by
> any real evidence. Just claims made by anonymous sources.

The document you're referring was compiled during the Republican primary and
election. It wasn't compiled after he was elected. It being finally leaked
because it's circulated for months with no one willing to print it is evidence
against an elite conspiracy against Trump, not for.

> Without any real evidence it's really a conspiracy theory, nothing more.

No one is arguing otherwise.

> Anyone has a good reason not to release private documents like your tax
> returns if you are doing business. It could be used by numerous sources to
> attack you. You don't want to open yourself up to that kind of liability,
> ever.

Though I appreciate you not using Trump's official line of being audited by
the IRS prohibiting him from releasing his tax returns, this claim is curious
because other nominees running for president have all released their tax
returns, many of them also businessmen.

------
disantlor
this piece seems to be conflating the more measured reporting from the
mainstream press with the careless (and criticized) dump by BuzzFeed (and
throwing in some cheering liberals for good measure). Trump did the same thing
at the news conference. In his case it was a tactic to hand-waive away the
entire news industry as fake.

i get the article's point, but i think we need to be very precise lest we
stumble right into Trump's narrative (he and his team are clearly very good at
this)

~~~
bainsfather
A UK view here. The Guardian newspaper had this [0] on their front page
yesterday [1]. I would not call it measured reporting.

In contrast the FT and Economist were much more measured - they presumably
still care about their reputation for sober reporting. It's a poor state when
the financial/business press is what I must read to find the truth on this
topic.

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-
gi...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-
dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts) [1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2017/jan/11](https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2017/jan/11)

------
RichardHeart
This is a seriously terrible headline. 1. "Deep State" Is this a vague meme
he's forcing? 2. "goes to war" is this what war looks like, or even
considerable effort?

How is this headline not clickbait? Analogy "Evil thing which doesn't really
exist does extreme crazy thing to President-Elect"

~~~
bainsfather
What did you think of the article?

About the headline - it does summarise what the article is about. I doubt
anyone clicked through expecting tank battles between Trump and the CIA.

'deep state' seems to be a variant on 'state within a state' or maybe
'military-industrial complex' the latter a meme 'forced' on us by Eisenhower.

~~~
RichardHeart
This is the kind of damaging presupposition that is the definition of Russian
information warfare (disinformation)...

What's the deep state? Does it include a deep judicial branch? Is there a deep
military? Where's the deep congress? To assume a cabal of mutinous member of
an organization that are hard to find (deep, not surface), is inflammatory and
should be have a higher bar.

If the CIA and the democrats colluded here, how is that either deep, or wide
enough to be warrant be called the "state" ? We have specific names for these
specific branches for a reason. The military is not the CIA, and is not the
Democrats.

Who is more a member of the military industrial complex? A. Donald trump that
wants to increase military spending. B. Everyone else.

If Russia didn't hack the DNC, and Rex Tillerson wasn't their pick, and Trump
wasn't on Howard Stern getting called out on his Russian Hooker usage in 2001,
and he had a blind trust, and he released his tax returns, and wasn't a
birther, and didn't have trump steaks, airline, university, the art of the
deal he didn't write, and like to invite your wife furniture shopping with
tictacs in hand, then people wouldn't care about anonymously sourced reports.

Listen to president himself speaking about taking a guys girlfriend from him,
like a piece of property, while getting called out on his Russian ties in
2001: [http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/314891/trump-russia-girls-
ho...](http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/314891/trump-russia-girls-howard-
stern-2001-aj-benza/)

p.s. Panama Leaks reveals Rex Tillerson was director of Bahamas-based US-
Russian oil firm, and didn't the FBI help him get elected via Comey? Are we in
upside down world?

~~~
bainsfather
"This is the kind of damaging presupposition that is the definition of Russian
information warfare (disinformation)"

Apparently I have just defined Russian information warfare? (Will you inform
the Russians, or should I?)

I'm afraid you have lost me, was that a reply or should it be a new comment?

~~~
RichardHeart
The presupposition that I'm referring to is that there is a "deep state." It
is similar to a lawyer asking if you've stopped beating your wife. If you say
no, you lose. If you say yes, you lose. Because you accepted the frame, or
premise of the question.

Thus frame control and accepting presuppositions is a dangerous game. It is
also how you win the war of disinformation. Nearly any event, honest or not,
can be spun through framing to appear crappy. Example. "Hey honey, I love that
dress you're wearing." "What, you didn't like my last dress? Why don't you
always complement me like that? I bet you'd like this dress better on my
sister. You're only saying that because you didn't take out the garbage."

So a simple complement can be converted by framing, into an act of confession.
If you've never studied forum sliding or all the other tricks the Russians use
every day with 100's of paid internet propagandists spreading their message,
it's harder to see.

Why Glen Greenwald would be using such tactics is quite beyond me. You would
think that an honest journalist would put front and center who the likely
humans are in this deep cabal of evil doers, or at least get us as close as he
could. But he doesn't. So this piece must have some other goal, if not to
expose the cabal. What it is, I am not sure.

So as much as I'd love to ignore the headline, and tell you what I thought of
the article separate from it, there's not much else interesting there. Except
for the doublespeak.

Sorry if it sounded like I was calling your post disinformation. Was only
addressing the article.

disinformation guide: [https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-
spies.htm](https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm)

~~~
RichardHeart
Accepting the frame that there is a "deep state" without requisite evidence is
harmful to critical thinking. Thinking that Trump is being screwed by the
Industrial military complex, instead of being their man, is reversed. Thinking
the CIA screwed Trump somehow here, while the FBI hooked him up, is also
cloudy. I thought leaks could happen by single people, why is it an entire
"deep state" organization?

I would say that the accusation of a "deep state" is more inflammatory than
Trump having hookers pee on each other or him. I'd prefer a world of
watersports to shadow governments.

------
ciconia
Right. Orange is the new black. Liberals are a threat to democracy. Putin's
the good guy. Trump's a victim.

~~~
loudtieblahblah
The Democrats are a threat to our democracy. Less so than Republicans, but
still. One only need to see the deregulation under Bill Clinton, the war
machines of Clinton and Obama, the explosive growth of the surveillance state,
the war on whistleblowers, and hell - even how Democrats manage their own
primaries by rigging townhalls, the party itself treating it's own candidates
unfairly, and having a system of super-delegates in place just in case all
else fails. So quit acting like they are somehow sacrosanct.

The article never stated Trump is a victim - in fact, it advocates opposing
him.

The article never claimed Putin was a good guy.

