Deep State Musings

 

I am on record in these parts, coming up on two years ago now, as considering Mr. Robert J. Mueller the Benedict Arnold of our time. I still think that is more or less accurate…but he is no Lone Ranger, there are many little Arnold-ettes in his posse. (And if you follow that link, I also have not changed my opinion of the sanctimonious twits in The Republicans for the Rule of Law…I’ve just recently put a permanent face for the collective now in my mind’s eye. Hint: Hi, Mitt!) I have also posted here about the much-ignored outrages (i.e. corrupt uses of governmental power) perpetrated on Sharyl Attkisson and in the name of Samantha Powers. The great national silence on these matters continues to be deafening.

I bring these references up now because I have a few (nicely aged) bookmarked stories – I won’t dwell on the reason for the delay in posting since I addressed it fully back here – that have only added to my contempt for the “so-called” Deep State…now a true misnomer since they no longer fear exposure and arrogantly hydroplane across the surface for all to see. The slashing of American Liberties can be achieved at a much-accelerated pace this way. But I digress.

The first story: Ex-FBI unit chief blows whistle on Comey, McCabe over warrantless spying (H/T: Instapundit, of course). The short version:

“why [would] the FBI … keep a program that was not producing any terrorism leads[?]

The response from the typical bureaucrat weasel:

“It was a way to say, you know, it’s an insurance policy to show that we’re doing everything we can, when in fact it wasn’t giving us anything of what we hoped it would get.”

The truth:

“There is no doubt in my mind now, looking at the backdrop and the information that has come up since 2016 in the media, that the abuses were rampant,” he said, “and not just for the FISA process, the FISA program, but for other programs that were used to spy on the Trump campaign. That to me is almost the obvious conclusion of what I’ve seen.

Go read the whole thing. And if you think it all started and stopped with the Trump campaign you are fooling yourself. If our media complex wasn’t so reliably (one-sided-ly) incurious on such matters there would be Obama Era scandals lined up all the way back to at least late 2009.  And Hillary would be in jail. But, again, I digress.

The second story: The ordeal of K. T. McFarland (H/T: You guessed it.)

Longtime Republican politico K.T. McFarland said in a radio interview Wednesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team pressured her for “20, 30, 40 hours of hell” to either cop a plea or implicate other Trump associates in crimes, even though she didn’t think she or they did anything wrong. …

“When the Mueller people came knocking at my door, they started quizzing me on stuff that I didn’t have access to and didn’t remember 100 percent accurately, and it allowed them to say, ‘well you must be lying then,’” …

“This tool, which we had given the intelligence community—which is a good thing for them to have if they’re tracking down mass murderers and terrorists—they were using it for political purposes to go after political enemies,” …

Tortured by the Deep State” is correct…and becoming all too common. Worse, the continued silence among a supposed free-people is truly deafening.

Good day.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 32 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    I live in a dream world, one where we are the good guys. We stand for truth, and justice (and obviously the American way).

    But some of “we” are not the good guys.  If there is no mechanism in our system of justice to hold these people responsible to the Law, then why would they ever stop operating like this? Why should they, if it works? What have they to fear?

    If they can get away with this, then Derb is right: we are doomed. Already too late. I’m such a Boy Scout. D’oh! – that’s over too.

    • #1
  2. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    As chance would have it I cam[e] across some related material during my morning reading. This comes from a 2006 essay by Christopher Hitchens for Vanity Fair discussing such things as FISA, NSA, CIA, etc.. The first quote references the federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan:

    “…the court that first held in 1972 that warrantless wiretapping of Americans for national-security purposes was unconstitutional. The ruling against Nixon was later upheld by the Supreme Court. One wonders if a Bush-dominated Court will do the same, but when by neoconservative friends complain about my undermining of the “wartime president,” I have my answer ready: give this power or this right to any one president and you give it, indefinitely and unaccountably, to them all. The surveillance spreads like  weeds…

    [emphasis added]

    Have we yet learned that fancy modifiers like “neo” and “compassionate” tend to nullify the base term they are being used with? Just wondering…

    Here Hitchens enlightens a bit on our trusted agencies of secrecy (and ties it into the post above rather nicely):

    These people are not even accountable to Bush: when he “authorized” the warrantless surveillance in late 2001 he found that the NSA has already started doing it without anyone’s permission. The FBI, on which tons of the resulting raw material was dumped, has stated that it was mostly useless and time wasting.

    [emphasis added]

    Exit questions: How many cameras and microphones have you (knowingly or unknowingly) voluntarily placed in your home and life.  What other new technologies are in the hands of those we supply with unimaginable power over us.

    • #2
  3. Kevin Schulte Member
    Kevin Schulte
    @KevinSchulte

    philo (View Comment):

    As chance would have it I cam across some related material during my morning reading. This comes from a 2006 essay by Christopher Hitchens for Vanity Fair discussing such things as FISA, NSA, CIA, etc.. The first quote references the federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan:

    “…the court that first held in 1972 that warrantless wiretapping of Americans for national-security purposes was unconstitutional. The ruling against Nixon was later upheld by the Supreme Court. One wonders if a Bush-dominated Court will do the same, but when by neoconservative friends complain about my undermining of the “wartime president,” I have my answer ready: give this power or this right to any one president and you give it, indefinitely and unaccountably, to them all. The surveillance spreads like weeds…

    [emphasis added]

    Have we yet learned that fancy modifiers like “neo” and “compassionate” tend to nullify the base term they are being used with? Just wondering…

    Here Hitchens enlightens a bit on our trusted agencies of secrecy (and ties it into the post above rather nicely):

    These people are not even accountable to Bush: when he “authorized” the warrantless surveillance in late 2001 he found that the NSA has already started doing it without anyone’s permission. The FBI, on which tons of the resulting raw material was dumped, has stated that it was mostly useless and time wasting.

    [emphasis added]

    Exit questions: How many cameras and microphones have you (knowingly or unknowingly) voluntarily placed in your home and life. What other new technologies are in the hands of those we supply with unimaginable power over us.

    New vehicles are now technological marvels. Yes the new spy platform. You say, ” but I don’t subscribe to the services. Well, you may not be interested in the subscription. That’s fine. It just means we won’t serve you. However, data is still collected. 

    • #3
  4. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    “Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they are not out to get you.”

    • #4
  5. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    As chance would have it I cam across some related material during my morning reading. This comes from a 2006 essay by Christopher Hitchens for Vanity Fair discussing such things as FISA, NSA, CIA, etc.. The first quote references the federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan:

    “…the court that first held in 1972 that warrantless wiretapping of Americans for national-security purposes was unconstitutional. The ruling against Nixon was later upheld by the Supreme Court. One wonders if a Bush-dominated Court will do the same, but when by neoconservative friends complain about my undermining of the “wartime president,” I have my answer ready: give this power or this right to any one president and you give it, indefinitely and unaccountably, to them all. The surveillance spreads like weeds…

    [emphasis added]

    Have we yet learned that fancy modifiers like “neo” and “compassionate” tend to nullify the base term they are being used with? Just wondering…

    Here Hitchens enlightens a bit on our trusted agencies of secrecy (and ties it into the post above rather nicely):

    These people are not even accountable to Bush: when he “authorized” the warrantless surveillance in late 2001 he found that the NSA has already started doing it without anyone’s permission. The FBI, on which tons of the resulting raw material was dumped, has stated that it was mostly useless and time wasting.

    [emphasis added]

    Exit questions: How many cameras and microphones have you (knowingly or unknowingly) voluntarily placed in your home and life. What other new technologies are in the hands of those we supply with unimaginable power over us.

    New vehicles are now technological marvels. Yes the new spy platform. You say, ” but I don’t subscribe to the services. Well, you may not be interested in the subscription. That’s fine. It just means we won’t serve you. However, data is still collected.

    HINT: Rental Cars.

    • #5
  6. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    I was at a legal conference in San Diego two weeks ago. I focus on the presentations about cell phones, digital data etc. 

    I make a habit of not sharing online the things I hear. But one of the most troubling/ interesting little factoids is that LE used to need a warrant to get info from your cellphone. 

    Now they buy it on the open market from google, Facebook etc 

    • #6
  7. MichaelKennedy Inactive
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    I would not call Mueller the “head” of the Special Counsel office. That was Weissmann but he has the record of a 9-0 reversal of his Arthur Anderson case. He should have been disbarred but he survived and thrived in the Obama DOJ.  They needed “Republican appointed ex-Marine” Mueller as front man.  The Papadapolous book is quite revealing about how they went to work on Trump appointees or even informal advisors.

    • #7
  8. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):
    The Papadapolous book is quite revealing

    Would that be this book: https://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Target-Crosshairs-President/dp/1635764939 ?

    • #8
  9. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):
    The Papadapolous book is quite revealing

    Would that be this book: https://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Target-Crosshairs-President/dp/1635764939 ?

    Just read the 1-star reviews on Amazon. It sounds like his opponents don’t have anything. 

    • #9
  10. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    The FBI has always abused power it shouldn’t have in the first place.  It was built, hyped and abused from the beginning  on purpose by JEHoover.  I haven’t a clue how to fix that other than abolish and or replace it with some  explicitly political coordinating authority and much smaller organization.  Crimes are local, and the worst federal crimes are not called crimes they’re called federal bureaucratic power.

    • #10
  11. MichaelKennedy Inactive
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):
    The Papadapolous book is quite revealing

    Would that be this book: https://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Target-Crosshairs-President/dp/1635764939 ?

    Yup.  We listened to it as an audio book twice.  We do that when we drive to California to see the kids.

    • #11
  12. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):
    The Papadapolous book is quite revealing

    Would that be this book: https://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Target-Crosshairs-President/dp/1635764939 ?

    Yup. We listened to it as an audio book twice. We do that when we drive to California to see the kids.

    I started reading it on Kindle last night.

    • #12
  13. MichaelKennedy Inactive
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):
    The Papadapolous book is quite revealing

    Would that be this book: https://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Target-Crosshairs-President/dp/1635764939 ?

    Just read the 1-star reviews on Amazon. It sounds like his opponents don’t have anything.

    I notice that Amazon has stopped including proof that the reviewer ever bought the book.

    • #13
  14. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):
    The Papadapolous book is quite revealing

    Would that be this book: https://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Target-Crosshairs-President/dp/1635764939 ?

    Just read the 1-star reviews on Amazon. It sounds like his opponents don’t have anything.

    I notice that Amazon has stopped including proof that the reviewer ever bought the book.

    Amazon hasn’t stopped including proof. It’s just that none of the one-star reviews were verified purchasers. Which is interesting, because I looked up the profile on one of the one-star reviewers, Jandeson, and this review wasn’t included in the list and all of the other reviews were verified purchases. Hmm.

    • #14
  15. Bill Nelson Inactive
    Bill Nelson
    @BillNelson

    The Scarecrow (View Comment):
    But some of “we” are not the good guys.

    But who are these people? If you find one and speak to them, you will find (most likely) that they believe they represent the “good guys”.

    Robert Mueller took on a difficult job, one that he knew would have negative consequences on him regardless of the outcome. That the majority of his staff were not “republicans” was a benefit to the president as no one could claim that it was fixed. That Mueller’s final report differed from a normal prosecutorial statement is also appropriate given what that task was to provide a report, not just bring charges.

    Prosecutors leave their political bias at the door, and if we can’t believe this to be true, and if it is not true, then we are indeed finished as a nation. As we alternate between republican and democratic administrations, and the rule of law continues to persevere, I believe this is indeed true.

    But even those in the “deep state” (scare quotes) believe themselves to be doing their job for the American people. Those who do take an oath take it to the Constitution, not to the president.

     

    • #15
  16. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):
    But even those in the “deep state” (scare quotes) believe themselves to be doing their job for the American people.

    Of course they do. Every tyrant has had similar feelings. But they have a huge conflict of interest. 

    • #16
  17. Bill Nelson Inactive
    Bill Nelson
    @BillNelson

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):
    But even those in the “deep state” (scare quotes) believe themselves to be doing their job for the American people.

    Of course they do. Every tyrant has had similar feelings. But they have a huge conflict of interest.

    With 45+ years in the business world, one sees how these things work. Have a VP trying to reduce costs in a specific area. Nice idea, but reducing cost reduces hours spent, which reduces peoples work (read: jobs). So there is resistance. Every bureaucracy works this way. As president, one is the Chief Operating Officer (COO) not the chief executive officer reporting to a board, because the president has to administer what Congress provides. A source of Pres. Trump’s problem is that he ran a company he owned, and was not responsible to anyone but himself. And he could fire anyone he wanted to.

    Now he cannot. He is responsible both to congress and all of the people, not just is supporters. And he has very limited ability to fire people. And even in setting policy he has to be mindful of congress. And these employees of the government, these unknown creatures in the “Deep State” are not tyrants. They work within the rules and processes defined for the various parts of our government.

    As president, it is Trump’s job to get as many on the same page as possible. And I don’t think talking about the “Deep State” is going to accomplish what he wants.

    • #17
  18. Roderic Coolidge
    Roderic
    @rhfabian

    philo (View Comment):
    Exit questions: How many cameras and microphones have you (knowingly or unknowingly) voluntarily placed in your home and life. What other new technologies are in the hands of those we supply with unimaginable power over us.

    My Alexa swears she’s not eavesdropping.

    • #18
  19. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):

    Now he cannot. He is responsible both to congress and all of the people, not just is supporters. And he has very limited ability to fire people. And even in setting policy he has to be mindful of congress. And these employees of the government, these unknown creatures in the “Deep State” are not tyrants. They work within the rules and processes defined for the various parts of our government.

    Sometimes they have no inkling that what they are doing is highly improper and/or illegal.   And sometimes they do.

    As president, it is Trump’s job to get as many on the same page as possible. And I don’t think talking about the “Deep State” is going to accomplish what he wants.

    That’s a strange description of the President’s job. The easy way to get everyone on the same page is to do what the deep state wants, and to put its interests foremost.  I don’t think he should do that.  The interests of the deep state (or administrative state) are frequently in conflict with the interests of the American people. A president who is looking out for their interests is not going to get those people on the same page of reform, nor should we expect him to.

    I am thankful that he talks about it, even if he doesn’t talk about it exactly the same way I would, or propose the same remedies I would. It’s a lot more than any previous president has done. 

     

    • #19
  20. Bill Nelson Inactive
    Bill Nelson
    @BillNelson

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    The interests of the deep state (or administrative state) are frequently in conflict with the interests of the American people.

    I would wager a months wages that these people who work in government are quite convinced they are doing what is best for the American people. Yes, they do look out for themselves, as all people in all organizations do, but in the main, they ae good people.

    I firmly believe that the use of the “Deep State” (scare quotes) is to get people to fear their government. Frankly, the government has power enough and this is not needed. It’s a scare tactic, and if Pres. Trump is talking about it, then he is afraid of his own administration.

    I read an analysis of Trump’s management style written by the Economist magazine around 2010, long before Trump showed interest in politics. His management style was described as “tribal”, and everything was his way or the highway. When he owns the company, that is fine. But a new CEO of a corporation has to win over the employees by convincing them that his new vision, goals, strategies and policies are the best for the success of the corporation, and for the employees. If he cannot make the case to the employees and other stakeholders, he will fail.

    When you implement new processes in a business, 5% of the employees will try to make them fail because that is not the way business has been done. If you get everyone else on board, you will succeed.

    Trump does not have an ability to do this. One of his first actions was to start a conflict with the intelligence services. For a president to succeed he cannot be at war with his own administration.

    • #20
  21. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):
    For a president to succeed he cannot be at war with his own administration.

    That’s a damning indictment of our system. 

    • #21
  22. Bill Nelson Inactive
    Bill Nelson
    @BillNelson

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):
    For a president to succeed he cannot be at war with his own administration.

    That’s a damning indictment of our system.

    That is true of any system. In my work, I have to have my products certified (for safety). I often disagree with my Product Integrity people, but if I engage in conflict, I’m going to see insurpassable roadblocks. It is the nature of any organization. The organization has processes and policies in place which they believe necessary to perform their function.

    If a president cannot have a cooperative relationship with the people who work for him or her, he or she is in serious trouble. And good management skills are needed to create such environments.

    • #22
  23. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):
    For a president to succeed he cannot be at war with his own administration.

    That’s a damning indictment of our system.

    That is true of any system. In my work, I have to have my products certified (for safety). I often disagree with my Product Integrity people, but if I engage in conflict, I’m going to see insurpassable roadblocks. It is the nature of any organization. The organization has processes and policies in place which they believe necessary to perform their function.

    If a president cannot have a cooperative relationship with the people who work for him or her, he or she is in serious trouble. And good management skills are needed to create such environments.

    Governments should not be run like businesses. One reason I could not support Ross Perot back in 1992 was that he thought government should be run like a business.  One reason I didn’t vote for the previous Republican governor of Michigan the first time around was that I was leery of a businessman being governor. (He ended up being not too bad, but not particularly good, either.) One reason I was leery of Trump was that I thought Trump might try to run government like a business.  Maybe he does, but he has a weird management style, so maybe that keeps it from having the typical results. We can be thankful for that.

    But there are some useful parallels. In the business world it sometimes happens that the managers are too invested in their own self-interest at the expense of shareholder interests.  When the old owners sell to new ones, the new owners may come in and shake things up with a new CEO. You don’t want the new CEO becoming co-opted by the existing management.  The new CEO does need to install his own team who will be loyal to his new program. The resulting restructuring is not usually a pretty sight.

    In the case of our government, some of the same people who criticize Trump for poor relationships with his own team are the same ones who have made it difficult for him to have his own team, or who insist that the new cabinet members give primary allegiance to the existing employees.  I wouldn’t claim that Trump has a good management style, but I do know that the deep state that is trying to co-opt or subvert him would not willingly make it possible for him to do the job he was hired to do.  So there is going to be huge conflict of one kind or another. It’s not going to be a pretty sight.  You can’t blame Trump for not getting the existing leadership of the deep state for not getting on the same page with him.  They are the problem. They are why we have Trump. Saying that Trump should win them over is the same as saying he should become as corrupt as they are.  When that happens, Trump’ usefulness will be at an end.

    • #23
  24. Bill Nelson Inactive
    Bill Nelson
    @BillNelson

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    some of the same people who criticize Trump for poor relationships with his own team are the same ones who have made it difficult for him to have his own team, or who insist that the new cabinet members give primary allegiance to the existing employees.

    A large number of Pres. Trump nominees have been rejected or withdrawn. Pat Shanahan as Sec.of Defense is a good example. A candidate with a lot of reasons to reject him. Trump simply cannot appoint people, the constitution is very specific. In part, there are issues because Trump has such poor relations with Senate republicans who are not wiling to go to battle for nominees seen as having serious issues. Or Trump turns on them himself, like Jessie Liu at the DOJ.

    Congress will insist that the nominees allegiance is to the Constitution. Not to the president.

    • #24
  25. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    some of the same people who criticize Trump for poor relationships with his own team are the same ones who have made it difficult for him to have his own team, or who insist that the new cabinet members give primary allegiance to the existing employees.

    A large number of Pres. Trump nominees have been rejected or withdrawn. Pat Shanahan as Sec.of Defense is a good example. A candidate with a lot of reasons to reject him. Trump simply cannot appoint people, the constitution is very specific. In part, there are issues because Trump has such poor relations with Senate republicans who are not wiling to go to battle for nominees seen as having serious issues. Or Trump turns on them himself, like Jessie Liu at the DOJ.

    Congress will insist that the nominees allegiance is to the Constitution. Not to the president.

    Well, yes, in that sense our government is NOT like a business. So we shouldn’t then criticize Trump for not having a business-like relationship with the head of the CIA.  

     

    • #25
  26. MichaelKennedy Inactive
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):

    The Scarecrow (View Comment):
    But some of “we” are not the good guys.

    But who are these people? If you find one and speak to them, you will find (most likely) that they believe they represent the “good guys”.

    Robert Mueller took on a difficult job, one that he knew would have negative consequences on him regardless of the outcome. That the majority of his staff were not “republicans” was a benefit to the president as no one could claim that it was fixed. That Mueller’s final report differed from a normal prosecutorial statement is also appropriate given what that task was to provide a report, not just bring charges.

    Prosecutors leave their political bias at the door, and if we can’t believe this to be true, and if it is not true, then we are indeed finished as a nation. As we alternate between republican and democratic administrations, and the rule of law continues to persevere, I believe this is indeed true.

    But even those in the “deep state” (scare quotes) believe themselves to be doing their job for the American people. Those who do take an oath take it to the Constitution, not to the president.

     

    Boy, that is some rationalization there.  Mueller appeared to have dementia when the Democrats made the mistake of calling on him to testify.  Weissmann was the obvious “boss” of the operation.  The “investigation” was over after three months when no evidence of Russian collusion  was found.  The rest of the time was spent manufacturing conspiracy theories.

    • #26
  27. MichaelKennedy Inactive
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):
    For a president to succeed he cannot be at war with his own administration.

    That’s a damning indictment of our system.

    That is true of any system. In my work, I have to have my products certified (for safety). I often disagree with my Product Integrity people, but if I engage in conflict, I’m going to see insurpassable roadblocks. It is the nature of any organization. The organization has processes and policies in place which they believe necessary to perform their function.

    If a president cannot have a cooperative relationship with the people who work for him or her, he or she is in serious trouble. And good management skills are needed to create such environments.

    That, of course, is accomplished by letting Democrat operatives (96% Hillary voters) run things.  It is obvious you have avoided reading any of the books that prove your theories are not valid.  I recommend Kim Strassel to start with.

    https://www.amazon.com/Resistance-At-All-Costs-Breaking/dp/1538701774/

    • #27
  28. Bill Nelson Inactive
    Bill Nelson
    @BillNelson

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    So we shouldn’t then criticize Trump for not having a business-like relationship with the head of the CIA.

    There is business like, and then many forms of non-business like. Trumps form of an antagonistic relationship is counter-productive.

    • #28
  29. Bill Nelson Inactive
    Bill Nelson
    @BillNelson

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):
    It is obvious you have avoided reading any of the books that prove your theories are not valid.

    They are opinion pieces. Nothing more.

    What I have been describing is how organizations work, and what leadership needs to do to change organizational behavior.

    For example, the latest imbroglio over the Ukraine. There were at least 3 ways that Trump had to delay the aide being sent to the Ukraine. Each of those three requires open/public communication of the reason. If Trump had done this correctly, there would be no whistle blower, no issue. But he did not. And when the hold up became public, they quietly released the aide. What does that say? It gives the whistle blower a reason to blow.

    But it has to come from real leadership.

    • #29
  30. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    So we shouldn’t then criticize Trump for not having a business-like relationship with the head of the CIA.

    There is business like, and then many forms of non-business like. Trumps form of an antagonistic relationship is counter-productive.

    Counter-productive of the things the deep state wants to produce, for sure.   That might be a feature rather than a bug. 

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.