Deep state. MSM. Trump ...
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, March 14, 2025 17:04
VIEWED: 33741
PAGE 4 of 33
... Nothing over here either
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The Founding Fathers wrote impeachment — originally a Roman political institution — into the constitution for the purpose of removing an official who had “rendered himself obnoxious,” in the words of Benjamin Franklin. Without impeachment, Franklin argued, citizens’ only recourse was assassination, which would leave the political official “not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character.”
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:Quote:Yes, of course, it's impeachment bait. Why would Trump take it?
And, by the way, Spiro Agnew, Nixon's VP, resigned because of his income tax returns.
It would be best, Franklin argued, “to provide the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be justly accused.”
www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/american-presidents-can-be-impeached
-because-benjamin-franklin-thought-it-was-better-assassination-180961500/
Referencing Ben Franklin, Trump might not be capable of "vindicating his character." Too bad for Trump. The country needs to see not only all Trump's past tax returns, but his future returns for 2016 to 2024. I bet a thousand dollar donation to fireflyfans.net that Trump won't release complete copies of any of his returns filed while he is President. He will keep secret or redact far more than just his Social Security number on the forms.
Want to see past Presidents' income tax returns? You can:
www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Isn't Deep State merely the pseudo-avatar for Obama and his coup?
No, it's one stage of sleep.
---------------------
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Second,
Impeachment does not exist for removing a president because someone lost an election.
First, take a look at how he was elected.
HRC stole the primary, which was predicted at 64:36 win for Sanders in virtually every online poll. Online polls had millions of participants, whereas media polls were cherrypicked from endless polls of hundred, to find the hundreds that would give them the answer they wanted. A near even Hillary victory. Near even elections motivatte partisans to vote for their side.
Assange detailed how Smartmatic flipped votes from what was actually a 64:36, to a near even split. That was the major fraud, not the superdelegates, which are the DNC's electoral college fudge factor to ensure they get the person they want. He suggested the FEC remove Smartmatic machines. They agreed but then didn't do so.
Assange went on to say that this would cause a drastic tilt to the general, to a similar degree. If you take Assange's numbers, it seems the election was actually 59:41 in favor of Trump.
That means I didn't vote for him, but nearly 3/5 voters did, and thus, he is President of the United States, that's how it works, and there's a very good reason for that.
Here's how it doesn't work: If Trump is removed on a technicality and someone that the people didn't want is installed instead, there will quite possibly be a revolution. Certainly there would be a complete discrediting of the democratic system.
Now, to accuse Trump of something, you actually have to excuse not impeaching previous presidents for much more serious crimes. The guy who just left waged war on over a dozen nations, including a large scale genocide against the Pashtun peoples of Southern Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan. Or why no one censured Hillary Clinton for her transfer of chemical weapons to Al Nusra when she was Secretary of State.
It would be easy to add hundred of crimes to both of these people, and to George W Bush and Bill Clinton. Trump really has yet to do much that is actually Trumpian, and this move to impeach started immediately after the election, without a focused reason, and was HRC's plan B that came out in the emails like so much.
I could rant endlessly on why i hate the Clintons* but I've done that enough here over the years. It's not the point. She lost the election. She's also why the DNC lost the election. That and the DNC's own desire to have her rather than someone who would win.
* Basically I think the Clintons are America's Nazi Party, but I think I've submitted endless stories on that, from Rwanda forward. But not-Clinton isn't really a reason to defend Trump, it's just there's no reason to attack him yet, nothing that compares on the scale of Bush or Obama. It's really a disgrace to do a birther movement or a Monica Lewinsky against people who are also genocide lunatics. We should, instead, as David Vitter and Ron Paul suggested in the '90s, impeach them for their genocidal policies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Deep State Koolaid.
Okay,
This was coined by Mike Lofgren, translated from the Turkish, but was adopted by Bill Moyers, who used it to write a manifesto riffing off of Murray Rothbard's Anatomy of the State which is a spin on Max Weber's take.
I haven't read the manifesto yet, but here it is. I did some digging in to Moyers, who is Johnson's press secretary, CFR and Bilderberg, so solidly NWO, which is a concern.
If we use this term it does reference people back to Moyer's manifesto, so it matters what it says, and to Moyer, so there's that.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/
The classical term for this is State within a state, or status in statu:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_within_a_state
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Subjective post DREAMTROVE. Of course it wasn't created to remove someone because they won. When impeachment is discussed it is with the understanding something egregious has or will occur. Many around the country believe this is inevitable.
Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Second,
Impeachment does not exist for removing a president because someone lost an election.
First, take a look at how he was elected.
HRC stole the primary, which was predicted at 64:36 win for Sanders in virtually every online poll. Online polls had millions of participants, whereas media polls were cherrypicked from endless polls of hundred, to find the hundreds that would give them the answer they wanted. A near even Hillary victory. Near even elections motivatte partisans to vote for their side.
Assange detailed how Smartmatic flipped votes from what was actually a 64:36, to a near even split. That was the major fraud, not the superdelegates, which are the DNC's electoral college fudge factor to ensure they get the person they want. He suggested the FEC remove Smartmatic machines. They agreed but then didn't do so.
Assange went on to say that this would cause a drastic tilt to the general, to a similar degree. If you take Assange's numbers, it seems the election was actually 59:41 in favor of Trump.
That means I didn't vote for him, but nearly 3/5 voters did, and thus, he is President of the United States, that's how it works, and there's a very good reason for that.
Here's how it doesn't work: If Trump is removed on a technicality and someone that the people didn't want is installed instead, there will quite possibly be a revolution. Certainly there would be a complete discrediting of the democratic system.
Now, to accuse Trump of something, you actually have to excuse not impeaching previous presidents for much more serious crimes. The guy who just left waged war on over a dozen nations, including a large scale genocide against the Pashtun peoples of Southern Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan. Or why no one censured Hillary Clinton for her transfer of chemical weapons to Al Nusra when she was Secretary of State.
It would be easy to add hundred of crimes to both of these people, and to George W Bush and Bill Clinton. Trump really has yet to do much that is actually Trumpian, and this move to impeach started immediately after the election, without a focused reason, and was HRC's plan B that came out in the emails like so much.
I could rant endlessly on why i hate the Clintons* but I've done that enough here over the years. It's not the point. She lost the election. She's also why the DNC lost the election. That and the DNC's own desire to have her rather than someone who would win.
* Basically I think the Clintons are America's Nazi Party, but I think I've submitted endless stories on that, from Rwanda forward. But not-Clinton isn't really a reason to defend Trump, it's just there's no reason to attack him yet, nothing that compares on the scale of Bush or Obama. It's really a disgrace to do a birther movement or a Monica Lewinsky against people who are also genocide lunatics. We should, instead, as David Vitter and Ron Paul suggested in the '90s, impeach them for their genocidal policies.
---------------------
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Comey's manipulation of the election - going public with an inconsequential detail of the Hillary investigation a week before the election, while releasing nothing about the investigations into Trump's Russia ties throughout the entire election cycle - seems like the clearest example of 'deep state' undermining democracy.
-------------------------------------------------------
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:THUGR you're just a fucking fascist. Most people wait until a crime has been committed BEFORE the trial. Good lord, you even post about "the rule of law" and then dismiss it completely!
When impeachment is discussed it is with the understanding something egregious has or will occur.
I think we should arrest YOU, because I'm sure you'll do something treasonous. You're already posting about it.
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW, THUGR is a perfect demonstration of what is wrong with die-hard ideologues. He's all for the "rule of law" unless it cramps his style. I could point to both rightwing (supporting GWB's various unconstitutional acts) and liberal (supporting Obama's various unconstitutional acts) dismissal of the "rule of law".
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig,
I guess what we're witnessing here is a liberal split between establishment liberals who are willing to abandon the concepts of law and democracy in order to install a liberal, even one that is roundly despised, at any cost; and a libertarian liberal which disagrees with the administration on a number of issues but is willing to try to work with them.
What I find ironic about the situation is that is that libertarians are fairly anti-establishment in general, but it's the establishment liberals who want to dismantle the system in order to get someone they approve of, albeit it nominally, into power. And do so at the risk of creating a police state.
Picture an America post-Schumer. Let's say that he gets his bill passed, which is unlikely, but he drives through a measure to establish a separate intelligence council, accountable to no one. He has a dozen dems who oppose him and an equal number of republicans whose support he might be able to get but not easily. What he really needs is a supermajority. So lets say some people can be bought, and then some have to be offered positions on this new intelligence panel which would have to be a better position than the one they currently hold in congress.
So, this secret panel is going to need a large budget to be able to give kickbacks for members of congress to even consider it, and lifetime election-free appointments.
Okay, so now the monster is created, I have to assume that he appoints HRC or some clintonista to head it.
Then the next step is to transfer JSOC to the panel, just as Obama transfered it to State for Hillary. It's easy to transfer all of the US military to JSOC, as Sy Hersh has shown.
Okay, now we have an unaccountable terrorist organization in charge of our military, but it still needs a budget.
So, time to resurrect Ron Paul's "End the FED." what a batter platform to completely redirect the budget from the elected govt. to this new shadowy institution than financial reform. Pass all of Trump's tax cuts, reduce real govt. budget to paying off the debt to the big banks, then call the big banks in to create a new financial black hole, which would issue currency, some publicly, and some secretly, through the same dark pools that the FED uses, into an account used by the CIA et al.
Now we have a central bank funded unaccountable international terrorist organization with the power to mint its own money, and instantly it is able to use that power to regular trade, which obviates congress.
Exit American Republic, enter American Empire.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME