But they keep finding witches...

[_EAllusion]

"The Deep State" is a term meant to refer to the bureaucratic, and especially security apparatus, civil workforce that is consistent from administration to administration acting in its own interests. It's a useful concept that has been utterly ruined by lunatic conspiracy theories coming from the American right primarily meant to protect Trump and secondarily meant to justify partisan purges of the civil service.

What's a more than a little annoying is there's lots of reason to think the Deep State is responsible for the election of Donald Trump (good call there guys: bang up job) via totally irresponsible handling of the Clinton email affair. Yet 90+% of the focus on the "Deep State" is over whether there is a cabal of anti-Trump conspirators framing him.

[_Maksutov]

I was a fed for 33 years. What you are probably calling the "Deep State" are career people who often represent very valuable human capital. Their loyalty is not in question. Their accomplishments are not in question. The question here is whether you are loyal to Americans or to Russians. That is not complicated. If you are inclined to favor a foreign government's interests over those of American citizens and the United States of America, I suggest you resign your commission or position immediately. I am absolutely serious.

The ____? Are you suggesting that career bureaucrats should see themselves as existing within a fourth branch of government, independent of the electorate? Are you suggesting that career bureaucrats, and by extension an entrenched bureaucracy, cannot have its own biases and self-serving interests? Thirty three years in the system though, that does explain some things :)

Nope. Didn't say any of those things. You're putting words in my mouth. That shows how far you're gone.

You took an oath but here you are breaking it. I'm very disappointed in you, Dog.

[_Maksutov]

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-b ... res-980774

Russian media declares "Trump is Ours!"

And that was before recent events.

[_canpakes]

With the present situation you've got career bureaucrats acting in both open and silent defiance of President. They may be chanting 'Merica, but their job security is all they really care about.

"Acting in both open and silent defiance of President" is going to help them stay employed by and for the President? Got it.

[_Chap]

No. I see the feds as being rather anchored in policy and law that prevents politicians from easily doing what they want to do. Since you're familiar with the Army, think of how chaotic it would be if every Captain Goodideafairy was able to do whatever he wanted to do, especially if it meant to benefit him at his Soldiers' expense, both literally and figuratively. Same deal with the "deep state" gubmint.

... Ideally the bureaucracy should be nimble and react to the electorate ...

Er, no. They are there to apply the laws of the United States of America, consistent with the constitution. (That's right, isn't it?). If the electorate votes for people who eventually succeed in changing the laws and the constitution by legal means, then it is their duty to follow the rewritten laws and constitution, or resign. But not till then.

What's the saying, patriotism is the last refuse of a scoundrel.

Dr Samuel Johnson was talking about scoundrels, not patriotism when he said that. (by the way it's 'refuge' not 'refuse'.) He was saying that when a crooked politician is desperate to hang on to his support, he will often go down the 'I am such a patriot' route. It's his final hiding place. You know, like I may be a crook, but stick with me and Make America Great Again?

With the present situation you've got career bureaucrats acting in both open and silent defiance of President. ...

And that is exactly what they ought to do if they believe that the law has been broken, even if the President would much rather pretend that is has not happened.

You seem to want exactly what the framers of the constitution were anxious to avoid - an elective dictatorship without limitation by law. Sort of like 'King Donald' instead of 'King George'.

[_Maksutov]

They may be chanting 'Merica, but their job security is all they really care about.

Well. They're human. And do you really want a government that can be totally swept way and staffed with partisans every few years? How would you enjoy working directly for some of the most partisan Leftists on this board?

- Doc

Term limits would take care of a lot of the "Deep State". But while GOP is in power they won't upset the cart. The Deep State thing is a mix of hypocrisy, paranoia and horsecock.

[_subgenius]

LOL. In the other thread I sarcastically joked about identifying the hacker because they failed to use a VPN. And now it turns out that truly is what this is based on? They have an IP address from Russia. Wow, that's some hard hitting evidence right there. Madness.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... e-dnc-hack

The forensic evidence linking the DNC breach to known Russian operations is very strong. On June 20, two competing cybersecurity companies, Mandiant (part of FireEye) and Fidelis, confirmed CrowdStrike's initial findings that Russian intelligence indeed hacked the DNC. ...

Do you find any curiosity that this "evidence" is from private sources that were hired by the DNC and then subsequently the servers were NOT given to the FBI for inspection...that the FBI had to accept evidence on faith?

The FBI requested access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) servers and servers for other Democratic entities that were hacked during the 2016 election, FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday, but its request was not met.

In a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon outlining the intelligence agencies’ findings on Russian election interference, Comey said there were “multiple requests at different levels” for access to the Democratic servers, but that ultimately a “highly respected private company” was granted access and shared its findings with the FBI.


So, the only "evidence" (that you claim is "strong") is, in fact, simply hearsay....but it does cause curiosity as to why the DNC would not let the FBI inspect the crime scene.

Knowing who conducted a breach investigation is particularly important when it comes to international cyber conflicts because just about everything the government tells us about those conflicts we are expected to take on faith. Consider the declassified summary of the Intelligence Community’s assessment of “Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections.”

The DNC breaches feature prominently in that summary but, more to the point, the primary rationale readers are given for why they should believe that the Russian government meddled in the U.S. election is because the FBI, CIA, and NSA believe that to be the case.
...
Asking private firms to investigate security incidents is often beneficial—it’s possible (likely even) that CrowdStrike has resources and technical expertise that the FBI does not. But turning over an entire law enforcement investigation to the private sector is a serious mistake. Companies have very different agendas and motivations from those of law enforcement agencies.

But please, tell us how it is that you translate the evidence provided by a company employed by the DNC as being "strong".

[_EAllusion]

Do you find any curiosity that this "evidence" is from private sources that were hired by the DNC and then subsequently the servers were NOT given to the FBI for inspection...that the FBI had to accept evidence on faith?

They were given images and network logs by an independent firm, which is is how that works. Asking for the approximately 160 servers is like demanding google send you their harddrives from their datacenters when you ask for an gmail record for your investigation. It makes no sense. This is one of the dumber defenses floating out there in the right-wing-o-sphere. It seems to be aimed at old people who have no clue how technology works.

[_canpakes]

Do you find any curiosity that this "evidence" is from private sources that were hired by the DNC and then subsequently the servers were NOT given to the FBI for inspection...that the FBI had to accept evidence on faith?

Lol. Aren’t you the guy who thinks that the FBI is in bed with Hillary? But you want them, rather than another firm, to ‘examine the servers’?

[_subgenius]

Do you find any curiosity that this "evidence" is from private sources that were hired by the DNC and then subsequently the servers were NOT given to the FBI for inspection...that the FBI had to accept evidence on faith?

Lol. Aren’t you the guy who thinks that the FBI is in bed with Hillary? But you want them, rather than another firm, to ‘examine the servers’?

irrelevant to my question and you answering a question with a question is a sophomoric deflection....but i get ya, you really haven't thought about the whole "evidence" thingy.
Them faith-based habits are hard for you to break, eh?
Should I just check the DNC website for your next response?