According to a New York Times columnist, Max Fisher, the deep state is not real, and there would be real consequences for blaming the Trump’s administrative problems on the deep state if it does not exist. (What Happens When You Fight a ‘Deep State’ That Doesn’t Exist? – March 10, 2017). Unfortunately, there has recently been too much written about shadowy alternative government operatives of a “Deep State” within the federal bureaucracy in the United States to try now to pretend it does not exist.
There is an incredible twist of irony here as one remembers the dark days of President Nixon’s attempts to deny culpability during the Watergate scandal, and it was the serious efforts of diligent journalists pursuing the truth and exposing a coverup that earned the respect of American citizens. Yet, today many citizens have lost a great amount of the respect they had for a “free press,” and no longer trust the MSM, especially when the members of the media deny an existence of something that is readily apparent, though hard to expose.
An interesting point about the deep state may have been inadvertently revealed not long ago by Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer. Many Democrats at the time had been reacting to President Trump after he had complained that some rogue elements within the U.S. intelligence agencies were leaking classified information about Trump’s conversations and meetings. Senator Schumer did not make a direct reference to the deep state, but he seemed to offer a veiled threat to President Trump on behalf of the deep state when he stated: “You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” Truly?
The first question one should ask regarding such a revealing statement is whether Senator Schumer knew this about the intelligence community by direct experience, or because he had observed someone in an intelligence agency “getting back” at some secific target. The second question would be whether the POTUS could actually be a target of such action—action based upon revenge. Schumer may not have realized what he had publicly stated, but his words do not dispel the notion that a deep state exists - they basically reinforce the notion.
One of the real scandals in Washington these days is that classified information is being illegally given out by such deep state intelligence operatives. This could very well be what Senator Schumer was referring to, or what he may have been posing as a threat. Actions such as these intelligence leaks should be viewed as treasonous—not viewed as “politics as usual.” This activity, if traced to holdovers from the Obama Administration is a much more scandalous travesty. This is fundamentally what a deep state domestic enemy is about.
Schumer’s choice of words becomes all the more relevant in this regard, and clarity is provided by former New Jersey Superior Court Judge, Andrew Napolitano. On Fox News In early March, Lou Dobbs interviewed Judge Napolitano who explained the deep state as that “part of the government that never charges, regardless of which party controls Congress and which party is in the White House.” He went on to clarify: “There are many, many aspects of the deep state; we’re talking about the intelligence community deep state – people in the intelligence community that have access to so much information about everyone.”
More recently, Judge Napolitano dropped a media bombshell as he was interviewed by host Brian Kilmeade on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends.” Judge Napolitano claimed that “three intelligence sources” had informed the Fox News network that “Obama used GCHQ, a British intel agency, to spy on the Trump campaign in order to avoid any record of the alleged wiretapping.” Napolitano alleged “that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn’t use the NSA, he didn’t use the CIA, he didn’t use the FBI and he didn’t use the Department of Justice. He used GCHQ… And there’s no American fingerprints on this.”
This allegation remains to be verified, but the other day in response to Napolitano’s claims, Reuters reporter Mark Hosenball, in their “World News” segment, referred to an unnamed British security official who denied such charges. “The official, who is familiar with British government policy and security operations, told Reuters that the charge made on Tuesday by Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano, was ‘totally untrue and quite frankly absurd.’ (British security official denies UK spy agency eavesdropped on Trump– March 14, 2017)
Well, there it is—citizens have it all summed up quite neatly: an unnamed security official, possibly fearing retribution from unnamed American security experts, put his entire reputation on the line to declare publicly (albeit anonymously) and unequivocally the absurdity of such allegations. Certainly, the public can also rest much easier knowing that New York Times columnist, Max Fisher, has made it clear that the deep state does not exist.
Of course, there are still those inconvenient security leaks to comprehend…
In the interview with Lou Dobbs, Judge Napolitano praised President Trump, viewing him as the first president to face off against the deep state: “The deep state has a very wise and shrewd adversary – the man in the Oval Office,” he said. “[It is] the first time in the modern era that the man in the Oval Office has been an adversary of the deep state, rather than a tool of it.”
The reality of the constant attacks against Trump and the security leaks from within, indicate that the new president may be confronting the most formidable domestic enemy in the U.S. since the days of Abraham Lincoln. It was treason then, and it is treason now—despite denial.
Dennis Jamison reinvented his life after working for a multi-billion dollar division of Johnson & Johnson for several years. Now semi-retired, he is an adjunct faculty member at West Valley College in California. He also currently writes a column on history and one on American freedom for the Communities Digital News.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement