• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who controls the Deep State?

Fishking

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
43,134
Reaction score
16,114
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Does anyone completely control them? We have examples of the CIA seemingly operating outside of their legal parameters and yet nothing came of it. Does anyone think that Obama ordered Dianne Feinstein to have her investigation monitored and people tried to be set up?

We have an organization who's history is full of things like supporting genocide (Guatemala), drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, coups to install dictators, illegally monitoring Senate panels and trying to sabotage them, and yet somehow it's inconceivable that these agencies may have monitored Trump and his campaign. I find the partisan blinders interesting, so long as it helps their own ends.

One of the few things the Trump administration is good for is that's it's highlighting this problem but it's frustrating to see that people don't care so long as it helps their team.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/...e-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html?_r=0

US intelligence agencies withhold sensitive information from Trump - Business Insider
 
Does anyone completely control them? We have examples of the CIA seemingly operating outside of their legal parameters and yet nothing came of it. Does anyone think that Obama ordered Dianne Feinstein to have her investigation monitored and people tried to be set up?

We have an organization who's history is full of things like supporting genocide (Guatemala), drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, coups to install dictators, illegally monitoring Senate panels and trying to sabotage them, and yet somehow it's inconceivable that these agencies may have monitored Trump and his campaign. I find the partisan blinders interesting, so long as it helps their own ends.

One of the few things the Trump administration is good for is that's it's highlighting this problem but it's frustrating to see that people don't care so long as it helps their team.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/...e-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html?_r=0

US intelligence agencies withhold sensitive information from Trump - Business Insider

I think that this should have been a poll with a list of suspects, but I would always vote for the CIA. The State Dept has always been used to give diplomatic cover to thousands of CIA agents. They're in the Department like termites or bedbugs. Does State control them, or do they control State? The CIA work outside USA borders for many years allied it with the HUGE Multinational USA Corporatons overseas and especially Latin America and Saudi Arabian interests. That makes the CIA and Big Money joined at the hip, so to speak. The CIA track record shows an absolute lack of ethical direction and a disregard for humanity. Repeatedly, not isolated events. "Banana Republics." Assassinations. Drug dealing. Disregard of Congressional directives and USA laws (Mena, Arkansas, among others). Banking fraud in Panama. Dope dealing with Noreiga and the Medellin cartel. Operation Gladio in the EU. Support of ISIS in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. Death squads in Iraq, Honduras, Guatamala, El Salvador, etc. Kidnapped the leader, Aristide, in Haiti. This is the short list of CIA atrocities because it keeps repeating itself. Enough said!
/
/
 
Last edited:
I think that this should have been a poll with a list of suspects, but I would always vote for the CIA. The CIA work outside USA borders for many years allied it with the HUGE Multinational USA Corporatons overseas and especially Latin America and Saudi Arabian interests. That makes the CIA and Big Money joined at the hip, so to speak. The CIA track record shows an absolute lack of ethical direction and a disregard for humanity. Repeatedly, not isolated events. "Banana Republics." Assassinations. Drug dealing. Disregard of Congressional directives and USA laws (Mena, Arkansas, among others). Banking fraud in Panama. Dope dealing with Noreiga and the Medellin cartel. Operation Gladio in the EU. Support of ISIS in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. Death squads in Iraq, Honduras, Guatamala, El Salvador, etc. Kidnapped the leader, Aristide, in Haiti. This is the short list of CIA atrocities because it keeps repeating itself. Enough said!
/
/

Maybe there should have been a poll but more general like, "Do you think government agencies operate outside the law and knowledge of elected officials." I've never made a poll though.
 
Does anyone completely control them? We have examples of the CIA seemingly operating outside of their legal parameters and yet nothing came of it. Does anyone think that Obama ordered Dianne Feinstein to have her investigation monitored and people tried to be set up?

We have an organization who's history is full of things like supporting genocide (Guatemala), drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, coups to install dictators, illegally monitoring Senate panels and trying to sabotage them, and yet somehow it's inconceivable that these agencies may have monitored Trump and his campaign. I find the partisan blinders interesting, so long as it helps their own ends.

One of the few things the Trump administration is good for is that's it's highlighting this problem but it's frustrating to see that people don't care so long as it helps their team.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/...e-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html?_r=0

US intelligence agencies withhold sensitive information from Trump - Business Insider

I believe it exists, and has for a long time. I have no idea who controls it though. I don't think it's just Democrats or Republicans, but a mixture.
 
I believe it exists, and has for a long time. I have no idea who controls it though. I don't think it's just Democrats or Republicans, but a mixture.

Oh, a specific agency? Definitely the CIA, IMO.
 
Maybe there should have been a poll but more general like, "Do you think government agencies operate outside the law and knowledge of elected officials." I've never made a poll though.

If you ever do a poll, I would recommend that you do a written block diagram to speed the process when you actually post one. The first one is hard and all easier thereafter.

/
 
Does anyone completely control them? We have examples of the CIA seemingly operating outside of their legal parameters and yet nothing came of it. Does anyone think that Obama ordered Dianne Feinstein to have her investigation monitored and people tried to be set up?

We have an organization who's history is full of things like supporting genocide (Guatemala), drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, coups to install dictators, illegally monitoring Senate panels and trying to sabotage them, and yet somehow it's inconceivable that these agencies may have monitored Trump and his campaign. I find the partisan blinders interesting, so long as it helps their own ends.

One of the few things the Trump administration is good for is that's it's highlighting this problem but it's frustrating to see that people don't care so long as it helps their team.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/...e-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html?_r=0

US intelligence agencies withhold sensitive information from Trump - Business Insider

I have my suspicions.

For example, the Progressive Machine created by Soro's and Company has been in the news with increasing regularity. Further, the globalist players of the World Economic Forum certainly have the resources to provide deep cover protection to the operators who have revealed their existence.

It seems to me, with Trillions at stake in the globalist agenda, it's naive to dismiss these possibilities out of hand.
 
Does anyone completely control them? We have examples of the CIA seemingly operating outside of their legal parameters and yet nothing came of it. Does anyone think that Obama ordered Dianne Feinstein to have her investigation monitored and people tried to be set up?

We have an organization who's history is full of things like supporting genocide (Guatemala), drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, coups to install dictators, illegally monitoring Senate panels and trying to sabotage them, and yet somehow it's inconceivable that these agencies may have monitored Trump and his campaign. I find the partisan blinders interesting, so long as it helps their own ends.

One of the few things the Trump administration is good for is that's it's highlighting this problem but it's frustrating to see that people don't care so long as it helps their team.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/...e-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html?_r=0

US intelligence agencies withhold sensitive information from Trump - Business Insider

I think people might care about it more if Trump and co. could produce some evidence substantiating their suspicions.
As it is, most people just assume he's lying. For that he's got nobody but himself to blame.
 
Does anyone completely control them?
There is no "Deep State" in the US. Period.

"Deep states" are the intelligence arms of authoritarian states like Egypt or Turkey. It doesn't refer to the bureaucrats that Trump blames for his own flaws.


We have examples of the CIA seemingly operating outside of their legal parameters and yet nothing came of it. Does anyone think that Obama ordered Dianne Feinstein to have her investigation monitored and people tried to be set up?
What are you smoking?

Obama didn't give Feinstein orders. That's not how the Presidency works. The CIA, by the way, hates Feinstein for investigating them for Bush-era torture allegations. They are not doing anything on her behalf, let alone illegally conducting surveillance on election candidates.


We have an organization who's history is full of things like supporting genocide (Guatemala), drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, coups to install dictators, illegally monitoring Senate panels and trying to sabotage them, and yet somehow it's inconceivable that these agencies may have monitored Trump and his campaign. I find the partisan blinders interesting, so long as it helps their own ends.
Did you fail to notice that Republicans don't believe Trump was put under surveillance? Trump got bitch-slapped by the House and Senate intelligence committees, and no Republicans in Congress are defending him.

I might add that the nasty (and largely ineffective) things the CIA has done? They did them because Presidents gave the orders. Eisenhower approved the Iran coup and Bay of Pigs; JFK continued Bay of Pigs; Nixon ordered the Allende coup, and so on.

And since it's been illegal since the 1970s for the CIA to target Americans, what do you think they were going to do with any information they collected? They obviously didn't use it against him during the campaign, and they would be barred from using it in any legal proceeding. The only way they could really use that surveillance would be the FBI, and Comey is champing at the bit to say that it didn't happen.

The bottom line is that Trump is full of ****. He had no proof before he made the accusation. He had no proof after the accusation. He has now accused Britain of spying on him, based on no proof.

He is full. Of. ****. You do yourself no favors by defending his destructive deceptions.
 
Oh, a specific agency? Definitely the CIA, IMO.

I kind of meant the question somewhat rhetorically to implicate that the President, who is supposed to be the boss of the agencies, don't have full control over what they do. The speculation over who actually controls it would be too specious to get into.
 
I think people might care about it more if Trump and co. could produce some evidence substantiating their suspicions.
As it is, most people just assume he's lying. For that he's got nobody but himself to blame.

So do you think Obama ordered the CIA to spy on Feinstein and the Senate panel that I linked in my story? If not, why didn't people go to jail?
 
So do you think Obama ordered the CIA to spy on Feinstein and the Senate panel that I linked in my story? If not, why didn't people go to jail?

I don't assume knowledge of CIA practices or protocols one way or another.
But I'd like to see some actual evidence that the Trump campaign was "monitored" by any of the federal agencies before I give this serious consideration.

I don't think that's unreasonable.
 
There is no "Deep State" in the US. Period.

"Deep states" are the intelligence arms of authoritarian states like Egypt or Turkey. It doesn't refer to the bureaucrats that Trump blames for his own flaws.

Except we have other examples to go off of. We have also had Trump dealing with a significant number of leaks that seems to be too numerous to be merely coincidental and too controlled in messaging that they give just enough info to create a fake scandal but somehow they never leak actual proof of any wrongdoing.

What are you smoking?

Obama didn't give Feinstein orders. That's not how the Presidency works. The CIA, by the way, hates Feinstein for investigating them for Bush-era torture allegations. They are not doing anything on her behalf, let alone illegally conducting surveillance on election candidates.

You read that wrong. I'm talking about Feinstein and the Senate panel having been spied on by the CIA. Now, unless you think Obama ordered them to do that then they took it upon themselves to do it. And even in that event, why did no one go to jail?

Did you fail to notice that Republicans don't believe Trump was put under surveillance? Trump got bitch-slapped by the House and Senate intelligence committees, and no Republicans in Congress are defending him.

I might add that the nasty (and largely ineffective) things the CIA has done? They did them because Presidents gave the orders. Eisenhower approved the Iran coup and Bay of Pigs; JFK continued Bay of Pigs; Nixon ordered the Allende coup, and so on.

And since it's been illegal since the 1970s for the CIA to target Americans, what do you think they were going to do with any information they collected? They obviously didn't use it against him during the campaign, and they would be barred from using it in any legal proceeding. The only way they could really use that surveillance would be the FBI, and Comey is champing at the bit to say that it didn't happen.

The bottom line is that Trump is full of ****. He had no proof before he made the accusation. He had no proof after the accusation. He has now accused Britain of spying on him, based on no proof.

He is full. Of. ****. You do yourself no favors by defending his destructive deceptions.

The only thing that's being ignored is the high volume of leaks that's happening. Sorry this seems really hard for you. But you're trying. Look at you!
 
I don't assume knowledge of CIA practices or protocols one way or another.
But I'd like to see some actual evidence that the Trump campaign was "monitored" by any of the federal agencies before I give this serious consideration.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

We have a large number of calculated leaks and some of Trump's campaign being monitored and recorded.
 
We have a large number of calculated leaks and some of Trump's campaign being monitored and recorded.

IF there was suspicion that Trump campaign members were in contact with Russia while Russian agents were actively seeking to undermine our electoral process, wouldn't it be appropriate for the federal intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance on those communications?
 
IF there was suspicion that Trump campaign members were in contact with Russia while Russian agents were actively seeking to undermine our electoral process, wouldn't it be appropriate for the federal intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance on those communications?

Lots of interesting and very...deliberate, responses to some questions asked of Chief House Intel Republican Devin Nunes. Seems like there may be something here.

 
Except we have other examples to go off of. We have also had Trump dealing with a significant number of leaks that seems to be too numerous to be merely coincidental
Perhaps if the Trump administration would try honesty for a change, the leaks wouldn't be as numerous. :shrug:

Also, using the standards Republican supporters created for Obama over the years, doesn't this thread suggest Trump is a weak leader that very few want to follow?
 
Lots of interesting and very...deliberate, responses to some questions asked of Chief House Intel Republican Devin Nunes. Seems like there may be something here.



30 minutes? It's getting late over here.
Can you give me some highlights... time stamps for the most interesting parts of this video.
 
Perhaps if the Trump administration would try honesty for a change, the leaks wouldn't be as numerous. :shrug:

Also, using the standards Republican supporters created for Obama over the years, doesn't this thread suggest Trump is a weak leader that very few want to follow?

Which doesn't change the fact that there are multiple high level felonies occurring at a rate that indicates possible charges of sedition happening. The intelligence agencies work for the President and it should be concerning to have them working against an elected President. That should be very worrisome to anyone yet people shrug it off because it's helping their team at the moment.

I remember when people freaked out on Comey just for telling Congress that they found more Hillary emails on Weiner's computer so they had to investigate. This is way beyond that, yet it's being applauded.
 
Which doesn't change the fact that there are multiple high level felonies occurring at a rate that indicates possible charges of sedition happening.
Much like Hillary's e-mails, the only way these leaks can be effective is if they highlight shady behavior. :shrug:

The intelligence agencies work for the President
The intelligence agencies work for America. Semantics aside, I have a genuine question for you.

What do you find more concerning...lies and possible illegal behavior by the Trump administration (which the leaks have suggested) or the fact the leaks have happened? In other words, did you support Edward Snowden or the Obama Administration?

Genuine question.

and it should be concerning to have them working against an elected President.
Don't fall into the typical partisan nonsense that "the government" is some monolithic organization, all working towards the same goal (and it's partisans on both sides who believe that, when convenient). It's not. It's composed of individuals, all with individual agendas and beliefs.

The "intelligence community" is not working against the President. Are there some within the intelligence community who have released documents damaging to the credibility of the Trump Administration? Obviously. But don't mistake the actions of a few for the group as a whole.

That should be very worrisome to anyone yet people shrug it off because it's helping their team at the moment.
I disagree. If Edward Snowden taught us anything, it's that the issue of leaks vs. info contained within is really not a partisan issue. The responses to that situation were all over the map, from both parties.

I remember when people freaked out on Comey just for telling Congress that they found more Hillary emails on Weiner's computer so they had to investigate. This is way beyond that, yet it's being applauded.
Well, given that we were in the midst of an election and there was nothing on Weiner's device, I'd disagree this is beyond that (and I say that as someone who had absolutely no problem at all with what Comey did). But that doesn't really matter.
 
30 minutes? It's getting late over here.
Can you give me some highlights... time stamps for the most interesting parts of this video.

One highlight is starting at 11:50 (little bit prior to give context to the next question) and then stopping at 15:00. This is a Democrat saying that there's no evidence of wrongdoing in the Trump campaign and that the only evidence of a a crime, and he states about it being serious, are the leaks themselves and that there was a decision somewhere up the chain to unmask the identity of Flynn.
 
One highlight is starting at 11:50 (little bit prior to give context to the next question) and then stopping at 15:00. This is a Democrat saying that there's no evidence of wrongdoing in the Trump campaign and that the only evidence of a a crime, and he states about it being serious, are the leaks themselves and that there was a decision somewhere up the chain to unmask the identity of Flynn.

Your times must be off... what we have at the 11:50-13:45 mark is simply Devin Nunes explaining why he doesn't think we need a special prosecutor. Not at all convincing, BTW... from there to the 15 minute mark we simply have Nunes trying to pivot to the identity of the leakers.

Devin Nunes is NOT a democrat by the way... I don't know why you suggested that. All you'd need is to look at the chyron... you don't even need Google.
 
Last edited:
Much like Hillary's e-mails, the only way these leaks can be effective is if they highlight shady behavior. :shrug:

Which they haven't. To date, no illegal activity has ever been pointed to. They've always stopped at providing real evidence and only leaving inuendo.

The intelligence agencies work for America. Semantics aside,

That's not semantics. The President is literally the top dog in their chain of command. He's their boss and is an elected official.

I have a genuine question for you.

What do you find more concerning...lies and possible illegal behavior by the Trump administration (which the leaks have suggested) or the fact the leaks have happened? In other words, did you support Edward Snowden or the Obama Administration?

Genuine question.

Multiple people have clearly stated there is no evidence of wrongdoing (see post #21). As I've pointed out, the leaks only give enough to give the facade of nefarious activity. If the leakers are already going to be committing serious felonies then why stop short of providing actual evidence? For example, you mention Snowden. He actually leaked full documentation, giving full evidence of various things going on. That aside, Snowden leaked waaaaay too much ****. I'd have a smidge more sympathy for him if he had narrowed it to a few things. Same thing with the recent CIA leaks. Snowden and whoever did the CIA leaks went way beyond anything remotely acceptable.

Don't fall into the typical partisan nonsense that "the government" is some monolithic organization, all working towards the same goal (and it's partisans on both sides who believe that, when convenient). It's not. It's composed of individuals, all with individual agendas and beliefs.

The "intelligence community" is not working against the President. Are there some within the intelligence community who have released documents damaging to the credibility of the Trump Administration? Obviously. But don't mistake the actions of a few for the group as a whole.

There are hundreds of thousands of people involved. Of course it's not all of one mind. However, it's regular enough that it seems to be not insignificant. If I were to guess, I'd say it's a few high ranking people.

I disagree. If Edward Snowden taught us anything, it's that the issue of leaks vs. info contained within is really not a partisan issue. The responses to that situation were all over the map, from both parties.

Say a decent amount of the military decides not to follow the order of the President, what happens then? This is no less serious and people better be going to jail.

Well, given that we were in the midst of an election and there was nothing on Weiner's device, I'd disagree this is beyond that (and I say that as someone who had absolutely no problem at all with what Comey did). But that doesn't really matter.

All he did was tell Congress that he found more emails. That's not even a crime, yet you think it's not as big of a deal. That's astounding.
 
Last edited:
Your times must be off... what we have at the 11:50-13:45 mark is simply Devin Nunes explaining why he doesn't think we need a special prosecutor.

Until 15:00
 
Until 15:00

Yep. I added this to the quote:

"Not at all convincing, BTW... from there to the 15 minute mark we simply have Nunes trying to pivot to the identity of the leakers.

Devin Nunes is NOT a democrat by the way... I don't know why you suggested that. All you'd need is to look at the chyron... you don't even need Google."
 
Back
Top Bottom