Trump's Populism thrives as an opposition movement, exploiting fears and resentment of elites and immigrants. Once populist leaders are elected, the shallowness of their policy proposals is exposed, and the public becomes disenchanted. But populists will always reappear in cycles, as demagogues seek power by offering solutions to complex problems that are simple, seductive, and wrong. - Anonymous.

Has ever a single paragraph described Trump's presidency as well as this one?

There’s nothing like an unbiased, rational appraisal of history.

And many think Trump's brain is golden. Like the above quote said, "...demagogues seek power by offering solutions to complex problems that are simple, seductive, and wrong"

“You’re saying Marla is in this photo?” Kaplan asked Trump.
“That’s Marla, yeah,” Trump said. “That’s my wife.”
Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, interjected to correct him. “No, that’s Carroll,” Habba said.
“Oh, I see,” Trump responded.
https://www.luxtimes.lu/en/world/trump-says-accuser-not-my-type-deposition-contradicts-63c8df57de135b923603e41a

“You’re saying Marla is in this photo?” Kaplan asked Trump.
“That’s Marla, yeah,” Trump said. “That’s my wife.”
Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, interjected to correct him. “No, that’s Carroll,” Habba said.
“Oh, I see,” Trump responded.I hope you realize that if you want to start comparing brain-dead quotes, then Biden will come out WAAYYYYY on the bottom?

It's much too dark in those department store dressing rooms. And all those tall skinny blondes look alike.

Trump's Populism thrives as an opposition movement,

All populist movements are opposition movements to entrenched powers . During Trump's time the elites are the uniparty ,deep state leviathan . Yes the resentment is real . Those powerful reduce America to a system that is not in line with the Constitutional Republic it was designed to be.


Once populist leaders are elected, the shallowness of their policy proposals is exposed, and the public becomes disenchanted.

Wrong . in most cases the American system /parties absorbed the ideas of the populists movements as was the case with the agrarian back lash against the Industrial revolution .For good and bad ,America absorbed many of Huey Long solutions to the Great Depression . Once that happens the movement fades away.

Americans are self governing people and populist movements in this country reflect that self determination

The danger here is that the deep state may have become so powerful that they do not feel the need to address the concerns of the populist movement . They have employed the power of the security /police against the movement . The danger is when populist concerns do not get addressed .that the movement becomes a revolution. (as was the case when the colonial populist movement's concerns that were not addressed by the deep state Brit monarchy .

The danger here is that the deep state may have become so powerful that they do not feel the need to address the concerns of the populist movement

WHAT populist movement?

Please define the Deep State, its danger, who it is, and why did Trump blame it for all his misfortunes? Please provide evidence where applicable of your claims.

did you not call it Trump populism ? Where are your links and evidence besides an anonymous rant ?

Where are your links and evidence besides an anonymous rant ?Same question has been asked many times and generally with no meaningful response. We'll see how it goes this time.

It is rather strange for Athos to speak of a Trump populist movement and then ask, "WHAT populist movement?"

You see ; Trump populism is so much different than any other populist movements in this country before . not And anyone who doesn't know what I mean by the Deep state has not been paying attention .I've referenced both the 'deep state' and my pet name for it the 'leviathan' or the administrative state since at least 2008 here .

did you not call it Trump populism ? Where are your links and evidence besides an anonymous rant ?

My post is self-evident. Yours needs more than your word for it. If you can't define what is you claim, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

If you don't want to provide evidence were evidence is needed, that's OK.

I defy anyone alive to disprove what I posted about Trump the wanna-be demagogue.


You see ; Trump populism is so much different than any other populist movements in this country before . not And anyone who doesn't know what I mean by the Deep state has not been paying attention .I've referenced both the 'deep state' and my pet name for it the 'leviathan' or the administrative state since at least 2008 here .

Our posts passed in the cyber-night.

Trumpites use the "Deep State" expression as a trigger-word without definition - just a vague "they". (Reminds me how the late Limbaugh ran his radio show - dittoheads).

Leviathan means nothing.

If you don't want to tell us what you mean, you won't get any approval. So, why bother?

I defy anyone alive to disprove what I posted about Trump the wanna-be demagogue.

you exposed your biases . I tried to have a serious converasation about populist movenents and you want to rant like one inflicted with TDS

you exposed your biases . I tried to have a serious converasation about populist movenents and you want to rant like one inflicted with TDS

I must have missed your serious attempt at conversationj. Do you mean like this -- "...rant like inflicted with TDS"? Like that?


you exposed your biases .

PS TRunp as a wanna-be demagogue is hardly a bias.

thrives as an opposition movement, ,exploiting fears and resentment of elites and immigrants. Once populist leaders are elected, the shallowness of their policy proposals is exposed, and the public becomes disenchanted. But populists will always reappear in cycles, as demagogues seek power by offering solutions to complex problems that are simple, seductive, and wrong. - Anonymous.Shallow policy proposals? Exploit fears of elites and immigrants? An opposition movement? What is there to disprove? It's only shallow opinions with absolutely no supporting evidence and as such isn't worth the effort. Your assurance that it's all "self-evident" just strikes me as a self-evident effort to avoid having to provide even the most casual of documentation. "Believe it because I say so," won't work very well.

Deep state a permanent government or an institutional government , Trump’s election was a shock event for a lot of people, especially for people who worked in government and were accustomed to a certain level of continuity . But the term predates Trump. Eric Snowden pretty much exposed it in 2013 how it was spying on Americans through the NSA .

Deep state .. Should civil servants resist policies that elected officials pass into law or enact within their power as elected executives ? It happens all the time .

Deep state a permanent government or an institutional government , Trump’s election was a shock event for a lot of people, especially for people who worked in government and were accustomed to a certain level of continuity . But the term predates Trump. Eric Snowden pretty much exposed it in 2013 how it was spying on Americans through the NSA .

Deep state .. Should civil servants resist policies that elected officials pass into law or enact within their power as elected executives ? It happens all the time .

Thank you. That accords with my understanding, except for the second part.

If civil servants are acting against government policies due to their political preference, I don't agree with that. I don't believe "it happens all the time".

I spent 5 years in DC and knew a number of civil servants including a highly-placed member of the Transportation Department. He was asked by Obama to be the secretary but he turned it down and went home as he had planned. This guy was as straight as an arrow and so were the others I knew who were not appointed or elected. I'm sure there are exceptions, but they know beforehand the strict rules and regs about civil service and many are young, recently out of university looking for a career. In fact, being publicly non-partisan is a point of pride with most of them.

Trump complained constantly about the Deep State and never did a thing about it except (rhymes with witch). It was great fodder for his sycophants.

Civil service, btw, was started for the express purpose of having government workers do their jobs without catering to any political party then in power. No organization is without its faults.

Civil service, btw, was started for the express purpose of having government workers do their jobs without catering to any political party then in power. No organization is without its faults.

"civil servants " decided that Trump was not a worthy Presidential candidate and devised an "insurance policy " to make sure it did not happen . After that "civil servants " in the Justice Dept undermined his effectiveness as President by "investigating " bogus charges against him even though they knew early on that the charges held no weight .

"Civil Servants " in the WH decided that they did not like Trump's Ukraine policies and worked with his political opponents in Congress to create bogus impeachment charges against him.

"Civil Servants " loyal to the emperor's agenda set up an active "resistance " movement against various Trump EOs in the opening days of his administration . Federal workers were in regular consultation with recently departed emporor political appointees about what they can do to push back , They set up social media accounts to anonymously leak . These "civil servants " made their preferences early on in the 2016 election .
Government workers shun Trump, give big money to Clinton | The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/302817-government-workers-shun-trump-give-big-money-to-clinton-campaign/)

But Trump was President and now their role as partisan hack "resistance " meant they were going to actively undermine the agenda of the President that the people elected as the Chief Executive of the US.

So your vision of the civil service system is a qualified failure if it creates a permanent state that is completely independent of the will of the people .

"civil servants " decided that Trump was not a worthy Presidential candidate and devised an "insurance policy " to make sure it did not happen .

Provide the specifics on the "insurance policy". Without them I have no way of responding.


After that "civil servants " in the Justice Dept undermined his effectiveness as President by "investigating " bogus charges against him even though they knew early on that the charges held no weight .

If you're referring to Mueller's report, his investigation was anything but bogus. He cited several instances of Trump's criminal actions requiring indictment but declined as long as Trump was protected by the AG as un-indictable.


"Civil Servants " in the WH decided that they did not like Trump's Ukraine policies and worked with his political opponents in Congress to create bogus impeachment charges against him.

As the entire world knows, Trump tried to pressure the head of a foreign nation to investigate his political opponent. The impeachment charges were far from bogus. They were unanimously (except for the spinless Republicans) considered more than worthy of impeachment. They even had Trump's phone call describing perfectly his crime.


Civil Servants " loyal to the emperor's agenda set up an active "resistance " movement against various Trump EOs in the opening days of his administration . Federal workers were in regular consultation with recently departed emporor political appointees about what they can do to push back , They set up social media accounts to anonymously leak

What is your evidence for this? Specifics.


These "civil servants " made their preferences early on in the 2016 election

I read your link. They gave their preferences by voting for Clinton and contributing to her campaign. BOTH ACTIONS ARE TOTALLY LEGAL FOR "CIVIL SERVANTS". You should read the links you post.


But Trump was President and now their role as partisan hack "resistance " meant they were going to actively undermine the agenda of the President that the people elected as the Chief Executive of the US.

Evidence?


So your vision of the civil service system is a qualified failure

No, tomder, my vision is far more accurate than yours. Your specific charges are false and every one has been debunked by me. The non-specific charges await your proofs or some evidence of their truth. You have provided none.


if it creates a permanent state that is completely independent of the will of the people

No permanent state has been created that is "completely independent of the will of the people". Your statement is totally absurd on its own merits.

What is your evidence for this? Specifics. Remember?? It's "self-evident".

This is tedious . You claim to debunk but with no references or links .But you ask for detailed references from me

The insurance policy I have referenced many times on this board . Look up the emails from FBI paramours Lisa Page and Peter Strzok ....who at the time was deputy Assistant FBI director; and lead "investigator" of the Trump campaign . and later the top FBI officer working for Inspector Javert Mueller before he was fired after his text messages were revealed.

Their emails were part of the IG report on the FBI 's conduct during the 2016 election.
Clearly they had an agenda beyond an unbiased investigation of Trump .

Page was afraid he would win . Strzok texted
“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it” in response to her question “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”,

download (justice.gov) (https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download)


page xi ;xii

In the exchange ,Lisa Page refers to a meeting in Andrew McCabe's office (Assistant FBI Director under Comey) where Strzok's 'insurance policy ' against a Trump win was discussed .

As for "evidence" of civil servant resistance to Trump; and meeting with the emperor's stooges , all I need to do is read the Compost



Less than two weeks into Trump’s administration, federal workers are in regular consultation with recently departed Obama-era political appointees about what they can do to push back against the new president’s initiatives. Some federal employees have set up social media accounts to anonymously leak word of changes that Trump appointees are trying to make.

Resistance from within: Federal workers push back against Trump - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/resistance-from-within-federal-workers-push-back-against-trump/2017/01/31/c65b110e-e7cb-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html)

Now show me where you "debunked " anything. Be specific with references .

No permanent state has been created that is "completely independent of the will of the people".



The bureaucratic state is the permanent state, because the bureaucratic structures, and, individuals who staff it , remain and continuously shape the state even while the elected Presidents and Congressional Reps come and go. The permanent state outlasts the democratically elected state . They can wait out ;slow walk the elected leader's agendas ;or outright opposed them with impunity .The rules of civil service makes it virtually impossible for the Chief Executive to remove them . The President can replace appointed officials at will but cannot do so with the staff they direct . How sick it that !

Does America really have a permanent deep state? We have a sprawling bureaucracy filled mostly by a permanent cadre of lower level officials. So the answer then inarguably is yes.

It was national security civil servants; so called Ukraine experts, embedded in the White House who were the 'anonymous ' sources used by Adam Schiffhead to justify the bogus impeachment . They leaked the legitimate call by Trump .

If you want an abusive and illegitimate use of executive power then you need look no further than VP Quid Pro Joe's pressuring the Ukrainians by withholding aide to stop an investigation of a company that had put his son on the board of directors .

Joe Biden on Defending Democracy - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0_AqpdwqK4&t=3112s)

(at about the 51:55 minute mark of this video)

Now show me where you "debunked " anything. Be specific with references.

Debunk #1: all from my post #12;

His investigation (Mueller's report) was anything but bogus. He cited several instances of Trump's criminal actions requiring indictment but declined as long as Trump was protected by the AG as un-indictable.

Reference - https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/
(https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/)

Debunk #2:

As the entire world knows, Trump tried to pressure the head of a foreign nation to investigate his political opponent. The impeachment charges were far from bogus. They were unanimously (except for the spinless Republicans) considered more than worthy of impeachment. They even had Trump's phone call describing perfectly his crime.

Reference: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/09/politics/trump-ukraine-transcript-annotated/
(https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/09/politics/trump-ukraine-transcript-annotated/)

Debunk #3:

I read your link. They gave their preferences by voting for Clinton and contributing to her campaign. BOTH ACTIONS ARE TOTALLY LEGAL FOR "CIVIL SERVANTS". You should read the links you post.

Reference:Government workers shun Trump, give big money to Clinton | The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/302817-government-workers-shun-trump-give-big-money-to-clinton-campaign/)

I see nothing in the Mueller report that indicates any wrongdoing by Trump or his campaign . What the ACS reporting describes as numerous links does not constitute anything close to proof of collusion.

Trump a hotel developer was interested in developing a Moscow project ???? OMG !! How capitalistic of him !
The meeting at Trump Tower was nothing . They found out that the Russians were there under false pretense and quickly ended the meeting .

The Trump associates that "lied" were all dealt with by the Justice Dept although I wonder how many of them were subject to the Gestapo methods that Flynn was subject to.

That last one about reporting contacts is a laughable charge in light of contacts by Steele operative ,and dossier compiler ,Igor Danchenko . to Russian sources when creating the fiction called the Steele dossier .

Interest in Wikileaks would not be even close to the equivalent of the Evita campaign fabricating the Steele dossier . Of course they were interested in what Wikileaks had on Evita .

Mueller could've referred his evidence to the Justice Dept. He had no authority to ' exonerate' or not .His use of that language was dishonest and deceptive .

If Trump pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Biden crime family was criminal than so was Quid pressuring Ukraine by the threat of withholding aid to squash an investigation of the company that his son was made a board member because of his connection to the VP of the US.

My point has not been debunked just deflected . Civil servants embedded in the WH actively undermined the policy of the Chief Executive of the US . That is indisputable.

The link you cite references the Hatch Act . I will concede there is no direct evidence that they violated that by giving contributions of money and direct campaigning. I'm sure they took the necessary steps to not technically violate the provision.

What about the Compost link that describes Resistance from within and their consulting with outgoing emperor staffers on how to obstruct the Trump agenda ?

Resistance from within: Federal workers push back against Trump - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/resistance-from-within-federal-workers-push-back-against-trump/2017/01/31/c65b110e-e7cb-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html)

Authority flows “from the consent of the governed.” The people elect the president; the president appoints senior agency officials; those officials carry out the law with the assistance of their subordinates.

However, career employees fill almost all federal positions. Political appointees make up less than 3,800 of the federal government’s approximately 2.2 million civilian jobs

This delegation stands in tension with the concept of government by the consent of the governed. Career staff keep their jobs irrespective of election results. If the American people do not like the job a cabinet secretary is doing, they can vote against the President who appointed him. Presidents routinely remove underperforming cabinet secretaries for precisely this reason.The people have no recourse if they do not like the job a career bureaucrat is doing. Career staff keep their jobs no matter who Americans elect.This gives the 4th branch ; the permanent deep state, way too much power .

Let's chalk this up as a disagreement . Technically there is not a "deep state ;no 4th branch .. In reality it exists and it undermines the country .

I see nothing in the Mueller report that indicates any wrongdoing by Trump or his campaign . What the ACS reporting describes as numerous links does not constitute anything close to proof of collusion.

On Collusion:

Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman, gave polling data information to a Russian agent.

According to Brad Parscale, (https://thehill.com/people/brad-parscale/) Trump’s election data guru, the information that Manafort handed directly to Russian intelligence was of critical importance, determining “98 percent" of the campaign’s resource allocations (such as spending on TV, radio and social media ads, rallies, field operations, and so on).

According to the then-Republican-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the ultrasensitive campaign information that Manafort passed to a Russian spy “identified voter bases in blue-collar, democratic-leaning states which Trump could swing,” including in “Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.”

As former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, top Trump officials engaged in a “treasonous” meeting with a former Russian counterintelligence officer and a woman with “extensive and concerning ” links to Russian intelligence services.

According to former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, (https://thehill.com/people/sally-yates/) in surreptitious conversations with a top Russian official, Trump’s soon-to-be national security adviser Michael Flynn was “neutering” American sanctions designed to punish Moscow for interfering in the 2016 election on Trump's behalf. At the time, Flynn's previous links to Russia made him the target of a counterintelligence probe, thoroughly justifying the FBI’s investigation into his collusive calls with a senior Russian government official.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/548794-there-was-trump-russia-collusion-and-trump-pardoned-the-colluder/



Trump a hotel developer was interested in developing a Moscow project ???? OMG !! How capitalistic of him !

In itself, nothing. But, along with other facts, goes to show Trump's personal interest in having Russia on his side.


The meeting at Trump Tower was nothing . They found out that the Russians were there under false pretense and quickly ended the meeting

Everything one needs to know about the infamous Trump Tower meeting. It's not as simple as you pretend.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/31/politics/trump-tower-meeting-timeline/index.html


The Trump associates that "lied" were all dealt with by the Justice Dept although I wonder how many of them were subject to the Gestapo methods that Flynn was subject to.

These "lying" associates were all pardoned by Trump. Granting a pardon acknowledges the crime for which the pardon is granted.


...Evita campaign fabricating the Steele dossier

You get partial credit on this one. Initially, the Steele Dossier was funded by a Republican. When the funding ran out, the lawyers contacted the DNC and offered the project to them. The DNC funded the lawyers who funded the firm funding the Steele Dossier. DNC officials always denied knowing about the Dossier. In any case, the DNC was ultimately fined (October 2022) by the FEC for murky financial reporting of the business.



Mueller could've referred his evidence to the Justice Dept. He had no authority to 'exonerate' or not .His use of that language was dishonest and deceptive.

The language he used was correct. Mueller could not exonerate because the president while in office was not indictable. Mueller could not NOT exonerate because Trump committed crimes (about ten in number which Mueller listed). DOJ declined to prosecute for the same reason. (This is all common knowledge, tom).


If Trump pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Biden crime family was criminal than so was Quid pressuring Ukraine by the threat of withholding aid to squash an investigation of the company that his son was made a board member because of his connection to the VP of the US.

This is an outright falsehood. Check your timeline, tom. Never happened.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fact-check-joe-biden-leveraged-ukraine-aid-oust-corrupt-prosecutor/5991434002/


My point has not been debunked just deflected

So far, your points have been fully debunked.


The link you cite references the Hatch Act . I will concede there is no direct evidence that they violated that by giving contributions of money and direct campaigning. I'm sure they took the necessary steps to not technically violate the provision.

Nice of you to concede that you were wrong.


Your final point below which is an excellent point deserves a thorough reply which I will provide as soon as I can.


What about the Compost link that describes Resistance from within and their consulting with outgoing emperor staffers on how to obstruct the Trump agenda ?

Resistance from within: Federal workers push back against Trump - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/resistance-from-within-federal-workers-push-back-against-trump/2017/01/31/c65b110e-e7cb-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html)

Authority flows “from the consent of the governed.” The people elect the president; the president appoints senior agency officials; those officials carry out the law with the assistance of their subordinates.

However, career employees fill almost all federal positions. Political appointees make up less than 3,800 of the federal government’s approximately 2.2 million civilian jobs

This delegation stands in tension with the concept of government by the consent of the governed. Career staff keep their jobs irrespective of election results. If the American people do not like the job a cabinet secretary is doing, they can vote against the President who appointed him. Presidents routinely remove underperforming cabinet secretaries for precisely this reason.The people have no recourse if they do not like the job a career bureaucrat is doing. Career staff keep their jobs no matter who Americans elect.This gives the 4th branch ; the permanent deep state, way too much power .

polling data ? Russia spent some money on social media "influencing" that by all accounts was wasted money on trolling . The Russian efforts were small potatoes compared with the massive campaigns of both Evita and Trump .
Thematically the Russians ineffective social media campaign pretty much echoed the critique of Evita that Trump and previously Bolshevik Bernie used throughout the campaign .

Evita lost because she was more unpopular than Trump was ;because she had a lame electoral college strategy where she neglected key states in the closing days of the campaign ,and because Comey inadvertently knee capped her campaign with the letter he sent to Congress late October.

There was no meaningful relationship between the Russian influence campaign and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior. If anything all it did was reinforce hard core Repub voter opinions that already existed . The Russian efforts were irrelevant compared to American media campaign coverage .

Russia Twitter Bots Didn’t Help Donald Trump in 2016 (theintercept.com) (https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/russia-twitter-bots-trump-election/)

Yeah McCain who's hatred of Trump was well documented and probably justified initially funded the Steele dossier .He was also quick to grab it and bring it to Capitol Hill so it could get some gravitas .

Mueller could not exonerate because he had no power to do so. The choice is not his to make .His job was to investigate and to charge or not .Our system has a rendering or guilty or not guilty . If someone is not charged there is a presumption of innocence ...unless you are running an Alice in Wonderland justice system.

Flynn . He was in discussion with Russian ambassador Kislyak as many soon to be National Security Advisors would do. The release of the transcript confirmed neither a crime nor collusion .

FlynnTranscripts.pdf (d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net) (https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2020/05/FlynnTranscripts.pdf)

When the emperor imposed sanctions on Russia before leaving office, Trump's team tried to avoid a major conflict at the start of its term. Flynn asked Kislyak to focus on “common enemies” and cooperation in the Middle East. The calls covered many issues, including sanctions. Flynn said what was already a well known stated Trump's policy of seeking a new path forward with Russia . Flynn did not offer to remove sanctions. He only encouraged the Russians to respond in a reciprocal manner .That in no way was undermining American policy.
Kislyak later confirmed that Moscow agreed to tone down the conflict.

The FBI wanted to shut the investigation down at the end of 2016 .

full.pdf (nyt.com) (https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6936-michael-flynn-motion-to-dismiss/fa06f5e13a0ec71843b6/optimized/full.pdf#page=23)

Comey, McCabe, and Strzok, overruled them. They were later ,in the Horowitz report, found to have engaged in misconduct during the Russian hoax.

It was the emperor (who had concluded that Flynn was unsuitable to be National Security Chief ) ,and key staffers in January 2017 that decided to persecute Flynn. At the meeting it was Quid who brought up the idea of using the unconstitutional Logan Act against Flynn.

Instead they entrapped Flynn with perjury charges ... something both Comey and Mueller were adept at doing . You find that most of the charges by Inspector Javert in his Russia hoax investigation were perjury leading to alleged obstruction ;combined in some cases with financial charges unrelated to the investigation.

Comey admitted that he went around protocol to get an interview with Flynn. He took advantage of the inexperience of the incoming Trump administration . He bragged that he probably would not have “gotten away with it” in other administrations. Strzok discussed setting up Flynn by steering him into making misleading statements .The investigators who questioned Flynn were NOT convinced he made false statements in his interview.

Later the FBI dropped charges against Flynn because they could not prove them. Unbelievably ,the judge in the case refused to accept the FBI dropping the charges . That should be how you view the Trump pardon. The Flynn persecution was a gross miscarriage of justice .

It is disappointing that the site libs want to re-rehash the tired old accusations of Russian collusion, which have no traction to speak of, while completely ignoring the very real story of the FBI successfully influencing the 2020 election by using its power to squash the HB laptop story. That's the real story of election meddling that we should be concerned with.

The Flynn persecution was a gross miscarriage of justice .

Flynn is a Qanon nut job. Obama knew he was a nut job and dismissed him. Trump was also a nut job and hired fellow nut job Flynn. Flynn twice pleaded guilty to felony charges. Trump pardoned him.

United States V Michael Flynn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Flynn

As to the rest of Tomder's post, those interested can read the links I posted to discover the truth. Tom, as usual, slants his replies right-ward.

The rebuttal to my detailed comments with corroborative transcripts of Flynn's call with Kislyak, and a pdf from the FBI interrogators who determined the case about Flynn should be dropped , is that he is a Qanon nut job and a reader edited Wikipedia link. .

he is a Qanon nut job and a reader edited Wikipedia link. .

Agreed. He has demonstrated his nut-jobbery and avows loyalty to Qanon.

The wikipedia link giving the whole story about Flynn and the US case against him was not edited in the slightest - there was no need to, the article says it all.

This is how Wikipedia articles are written


Who writes the entries?
Anyone can - it's open to all and can be modified and edited by anyone. However, Wikipedia's administrators protect some pages from direct editing if they believe they are regularly subjected to "vandalism" - the addition of abusive language or falsehoods.



Wikipedia editing rules in a nutshell - BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32412121)

Tom, are you surprised? Liberals have to go with what they have, and in this case that's not much, so we're basically down to name-calling.

This is how Wikipedia articles are written

Wikipedia editing rules in a nutshell - BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32412121)

I agree with you, but that's not always a bad thing. You have to take each entry on its own merits. The editing is required to have sources cited; if not, that is so noted at the beginning of the article. That's a stretch ahead of much media coverage, especially the partisan press.

Here are studies on the topic, (from Wikipedia);

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

The peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie.

A study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute.

The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/oct/24/comment.newmedia), PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies.


Still, because anyone can edit Wikipedia entries, they "can easily be undermined through malice or ignorance," noted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4534712.stm) BBC technology comment

True, but nothing is immune from malice as the last several years have proven.

In the early days of Wikipedia, I corrected a translation of the huge Church/Mosque (Hagia Sophia) in Istanbul as St. Sophie - a barbarism - to Holy Wisdom, the correct translation.

Since then I have found Wiki to be extremely reliable. In fact, the best quick go-to site on the net.

There are well over 2 million federal civil servants excluding the military. To broad brush them as a vast conspiracy called the “Deep State” engaged in undermining the nation for left-wing purposes is absurd on its face.

Do civil servants have political preferences? Sure they do. But I doubt a clerk-typist working in the US Attorney's office in Iowa or Maine is busy planning the overthrow of the government. Of course, he or she may be a dues-paying member of the Proud Boys or the Oathkeepers in which case all bets are off. (That's a joke in case literal-boy is reading this).



Authority flows “from the consent of the governed.” The people elect the president; the president appoints senior agency officials; those officials carry out the law with the assistance of their subordinates.

The “consent of the governed” does NOT mean each governed citizen provides consent on every issue. It means that a governed citizen VOTES for his representative in government to vote on his behalf. As you may have noticed, it's not perfect.


However, career employees fill almost all federal positions and this group stands in tension with the concept of government by the consent of the governed.

It's not the least bit in conflict with the concept of government by the consent of the governed. No one in their right mind expects 2.2 million jobs to be filled by voting.


Career staff keep their jobs irrespective of election results.

Of course they do, their jobs do not depend on being elected. Otherwise you'd have those million+ jobs being replaced every two-year election cycle.


If the American people do not like the job a cabinet secretary is doing, they can vote against the President who appointed him. Presidents routinely remove underperforming cabinet secretaries for precisely this reason

The fact of the matter is that the people generally have little idea whether the secretary is performing or not, and that's not a “routine” reason to not vote for a president.


The people have no recourse if they do not like the job a career bureaucrat is doing.

The responsibility for ensuring job performance by a civil servant is not the voter, it is the supervisor of the worker.


Career staff keep their jobs no matter who Americans elect.

Yes, because that ensures continuity of government. The alternative is chaos.


It gives the 4th branch ; the permanent deep state, way too much power

There is no “4th Branch”. The civil service is not a “deep state”. It is the civil service. Your attempt to give it a nefarious name is nonsense.

Tomder, these ideas of yours are surprising. They're way out in left field and don't make much, if any, sense. Usually, although we often disagree, you offer arguments and positions that you defend from a standard right-wing point of view. This time, it's not like you.