First, I bring up the "Deep State" phrase because the GOP is swinging freely using that term against witnesses in the 2019 Tweety Trump Impeachment Hearings.
"The impeachment hearings have demolished Trump's 'deep state' defense"
David Faris 20 Nov 2019
https://theweek.com/articles/879457/impeachment-hearings-have-demolished-trumps-deep-state-defense
"The impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives may or may not ultimately shift public opinion against President Trump. But the parade of somber, earnest, and sometimes geeky foreign service officers and National Security Council staffers has surely strained the credibility of the longstanding Republican hallucination that a cabal of rabid Democrats and Never Trumpers in the "deep state" is committed to doing anything possible to bring down the president.
The latest public servant to appear totally harmless, a little bit nerdy, and utterly unlikely to be plotting a coup was Tuesday's star witness, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a Harvard-educated National Security Council aide whose family fled to the U.S. from the former Soviet Union when he was a child. Only the truly coldhearted could fail to be moved by Vindman's story of arriving as a refugee and then working his way up to scholarly and martial glory in his adopted homeland. One does not need to be a devotee of mindless military worship to see that this man's credentials are unassailable."
Even with stark proof of Vindman's integrity, his family immigration history, love of America, Fox News tries to demean an outstanding USA soldier. Laura Ingraham is a very, very ugly person. Her Fox program is up there with Hannity in crapping on facts and truth. Her Fox TV-State Media work to disrespect Vindman was probably some of her ugliest work. Republicans and Democrats slammed the ugly narrative LI tried to spew on America that night.
""'Shameful,' 'despicable': Republicans and Democrats decry attacks on impeachment witness Vindman"
Fox News host Laura Ingraham suggested the Army lieutenant colonel and decorated combat vet could be disloyal to the U.S.
Oct. 29, 2019, 2:19 PM EDT / Updated Oct. 29, 2019, 3:38 PM EDT
By Dartunorro Clark
"Prominent Republicans joined Democrats on Tuesday in defending Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman against attacks from right-wing pundits who questioned his loyalty to the country ahead of his testimony in the House’s impeachment inquiry.
The reaction came after Fox News host Laura Ingraham and others suggested Vindman, a Ukraine expert on the National Security Council who fled the Soviet Union as child, could be demonstrating disloyalty — and even potentially traitorous behavior — to the United States because, according to a report in The New York Times, Ukrainian officials asked him for advice in dealing with Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani's efforts regarding their country.
“I think that we need to show that we are better than that as a nation," Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the third-ranking House Republican, said at a GOP leadership news conference Tuesday. "Their patriotism, their love of country — we’re talking about decorated veterans who have served their country, who have put their lives on the line. And it is shameful to question their patriotism and their love of this nation.”"
CNN was not innocent as they allowed an analyst on their network to suggest Vindman a was a spy as well.
"Fox News, CNN criticized for ‘shameful’ coverage of Trump national security official Alexander Vindman"
by Rob Tornoe, Updated: October 29, 2019
"But on Fox News and CNN, hosts and analysis supportive of Trump pushed an unsupported narrative that Vindman, a Ukrainian refugee who immigrated to the United States when he was a child, might be a double agent.
During her Fox News show Monday night, Laura Ingraham focused on a small part of a New York Times story that outlined Vindman’s background as an immigrant, pointing out that he speaks fluent Ukrainian and Russian but that in his discussions with Ukrainian officials, they “typically communicated in English.” [What does this language comment suggest? NOTHING! I speak German! That doesn't make me a spy!]
“Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine, while working inside the White House, apparently against the president’s interest, and usually, they spoke in English,” Ingraham said to one of her guests, John Yoo. "Isn’t that kind of an interesting angle on this story?”“You know, some people might call that espionage,” Yoo suggested.
Are you kidding me Mr. Yoo, speaking "espionage" just as Laura suggested! These people are really criminal in their effort to disrespect a decorated soldier.
"The narrative also made it onto the network’s morning show Fox & Friends, with co-host Brian Kilmeade noting that Vindman had “an affinity to the Ukrainian people" and that "he tends to feel simpatico with Ukraine.”"
Fox & Friends can almost be forgiven because they are always vapid and stupid in the kissing Tweety Trump's shoes. But are you kidding me? A decorated war hero for America is a spy?
"New CNN analyst and former MTV Real World star Sean Duffy, a former Republican congressman from Wisconsin who has already drawn criticism during his brief tenure with the network, used almost identical language to describe Vindman during a spot on CNN’s New Day Tuesday morning."
At least CNN tried to back down the crap coming from Duffy.
"CNN anchor and correspondent Jim Sciutto described the attack as “character assassination." CNN host S.E. Cupp also called the comments “shameful.” "
Of course Tweety Trump picked up the thread and called Vindman a "Never Trumper."
"DECONSTRUCTING THE DEEP STATE"
Donald Trump isn’t the first president to be deeply skeptical of the institutions and people he now leads
By Charles S. Clark
https://www.govexec.com/feature/gov-exec-deconstructing-deep-state/
"Even before he took the oath of office, Trump took to Twitter to characterize suspected leakers in the intelligence community as behaving like Nazis. At the Justice Department, Attorney General Jeff Sessions in August issued a loud warning to would-be leakers, even as some career Justice staff continued spilling to the media their worries about Sessions’ policy reversals on such issues as immigration and affirmative action."
Leaks can be for many reasons, and maybe Tweety Trump saw leaks because he was doing bad things. When he blames civil servants, ignoring the possibility that his chosen people are leaking, he risks bad things happening, i.e., unintended consequences. It can get worse before it gets better.
". . . to many with years in government, the term “deep state” is disturbing. “Deep state is both inaccurate and grossly misleading,” said Nancy McEldowney, who retired in June as director of the Arlington, Va.-based Foreign Service Institute. “The term originated in the context of analyzing the situations in Turkey and Egypt, where I served, usually to talk about propaganda, dirty tricks, and even violence to overthrow the government,” she said.“
To refer to career civil servants in the U.S. government as some form of deep state is a clear attempt to delegitimize voices of disagreement," she added. “Even worse, it carries with it the potential for fear-baiting and rumor-mongering, and is really a dark conspiratorial term that does not correspond to reality.”"
Simply put, disrespecting your entire government work force with the term "Deep State" can only lead to bad things. It is divisive and destructive.
These are knowledgeable, experienced people explaining what we need to know about use of the term "Deep State" and blaming the wrong people for leaks. BUT Tweety Trump will choose who he wants to blame for his own purposes, and he will do so out of blatant, purposeful ignorance.
"Every new president brings into office political appointees who are wary of “bureaucrats,” said Paul Light, Paulette Goddard Professor of Public Service at New York University. “Democrats historically have been as reluctant to work with careerists as Republicans, not because of the ideology but because of the desire for speed.”"
Key point, Tweety Trump could have tried to earn civil servant's respect. He chose to criticize them.
"More than half of federal employees had said the previous October they would vote for Hillary Clinton, according to a Government Executive/Government Business Council survey. Just 34 percent were for Trump. (As many as a quarter of federal employees had said in an earlier Government Executive/GBC poll that they would resign were Trump to win the election.)"
Tweety Trump, by his ignorance, added to the issue he sees as the Deep State. He was slow replacing the bureaucrats he feared. Put people in place whom you choose, then "problem solved," right?
"The Trump administration’s skepticism about the deep state has led to a number of self-inflicted crises and prompted endless discussion about the president’s decision-making process. The questions include why he issued a court-blocked travel ban last February without consulting Justice or the Homeland Security Department. Why he tweeted a promise to remove LGBTQ service members from the military without looping in the Pentagon. Why he threatened North Korea with “fire and fury” without a team of foreign policy specialists molding the language.
Ornstein bemoans what he sees as Trump’s “war on expertise, war on science,” as revealed in his “dismantling” of science advisory panels on the environment. He complains that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is “driving out some of the best and brightest career diplomats out of sheer incompetence, ignorance, indifference, and hostility.”
There’s a paradox, added Kettl, in complaining about a deep state and then taking such a long time to make political appointments. While the administration has an ambitious agenda, without appointees in place to implement its plans, it is reliant on career staff to get the work done."
Second, the majority of conspiracies are BS. People who use and rely on conspiracies to prove a point have no proof. Typically, conspiracies cannot be proven or disproven. The type of "conspiracy" that is real is more like a fraud or lies scenario, like the current (Dec 2019) story telling the secrets and lies told of the Afghanistan war, published by the Washington Post.
The origin of Deep State was in Turkey, and then in America it is corporate lobbyists, not government bureaucrats who are not linked nor do they have any sort of organized power. The article by Mike Lofgren below, author of the book "Deep State," concludes this way:
"“Deep state” seemed to fit: On the Hill, we used to remark how corporate lobbyists always knew the inside dope, and the dirt, first. The real power-lobbyists tended to concentrate in a few sectors: the military-industrial complex, of course (which Dwight Eisenhower warned us about); financial services, supercharged after decades of deregulation; and information technology, with its trillion-dollar companies. Boosted by the revolving door that lets those industries’ executives shuttle through government policy positions, and unfettered by any meaningful campaign finance limitations, that concentration of power formed the basis of the deep state. No conspiracies in the dark of night, no grassy knoll, no Area 51. The players are known, their actions legal."
"The real ‘deep state’ is about corporate power, not entrenched bureaucrats"
This right-wing catchphrase supposedly describes rebellious government workers. But moneyed influencers are the real “deep state.”
[picture here . . . Civil Servants accused of being part of the fantasy "Deep State" brought up when unethical and illegal political behavior is revealed.]
Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch is sworn in to testify before the House Intelligence Committee on November 15, 2019. In the second impeachment hearing held by the committee, House Democrats continue to build a case against U.S. President Donald Trumps efforts to link U.S. military aid for Ukraine to the nations investigation of his political rivals. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
By Mike Lofgren [The person who created the term, "Deep State" in a book.]
Mike Lofgren is a former congressional staff member and the author of “The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government.”
November 15, 2019
"With impeachment hearings underway, conservatives’ favorite catchphrase, the “deep state,” has gotten a thorough airing. Stephen Miller, the White House’s hard-line immigration adviser, called the Ukraine whistleblower a “saboteur,” adding, “I know the difference between a whistleblower and a deep state operative.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), an ally of President Trump, described GOP colleagues insufficiently protective of the administration as people “whose allegiance is more to the Deep State than it is to the president.” “‘Deep state’ diplomats caught up in Trump impeachment fight back,” said the Washington Times, reporting on current and former diplomats testifying for impeachment investigators.
As the author who popularized this term, I’m invoking the privilege of correcting them. There is no deep state as the right imagines it — that is, a secret cabal of government insiders hellbent on undermining the White House. Rather, it is Trump himself, under the camouflage of populist rhetoric, who has overseen the open expansion of the deep state: entrenched interests gaining outsize influence and setting their own policy agenda, unchecked by the will of the people, their elected representatives or the civil servants meant to regulate them.
I wrote my book “The Deep State” to capture a phenomenon I had noticed over my 30 years as a Republican staffer in Congress. Despite the fiercely partisan atmosphere of the Obama presidency, policy largely remained on the same course as under his predecessor, George W. Bush, who had foundered on a Middle East quagmire and a financial meltdown. Barack Obama continued Bush’s misadventures abroad while committing a huge, unforced error of his own by intervening in Libya. He cleaned up the financial crash by bailing out banks but providing little relief to homeowners. Even his health-care bill, which Republicans decried as virtual Stalinism, copied the conservative Heritage Foundation’s 1990s proposal. It seemed that whichever party controlled government, a kind of GPS ensured that the arrow always pointed in the same direction: toward money."
