More on the process as punishment

Why no one spoke up for Flynn

“Considering that there were more than a few officials who had to be aware of what was going on, including support staff, Mr. Durham found it remarkable that no one spoke up “at the onset.”

One would think he might have learned by now that the only use members of the deep state have for whistleblowing is when it can be used as a weapon against the right. I posted on this story here.

The next day, I received an email from one of my readers who said he could easily answer Mr. Durham’s question. It’s because “No one in the FBI or the DOJ wanted to engage in a futile suicide mission that would put them and their families through years of hell, cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, and put their pensions at risk, all so that their information could be ignored.”

William Henck knows, because he lived it.”

Another innocent and honorable man ground to dust by the bottomless resources of the Deep State.

6 thoughts on “More on the process as punishment

  1. RE: “Another innocent and honorable man ground to dust by the bottomless resources of the Deep State.”

    The question I struggle with is: Why does the Deep State behave this way?

    There is no shortage of unsatisfyingly glib explanations. At the same time, more elaborate explanations tend to be derided as “conspiracy theories” — there are even those who claim that no such thing as the Deep State exists. Good answers that people are willing to discuss and potentially address are hard to come by.


  2. Continuing to refer to the bureaucracy of our government as the “deep state” is red herring language that feeds into the Trump narrative and has little or nothing to do with factual matters.

    No one spoke up for Flynn because Flynn lied repeatedly to the FBI, the VP and the courts. Would YOU stand up for someone that has done that? But then again, a few people here constantly speak up for a man who has lied over 16,000 times to the American people.


    1. RE: “‘deep state’ is red herring language”

      If you require a different term for reasons of semantic nicety, we could use the phrase military/industrial complex. But it would be easier to simply use the language that others already understand.

      Here’s a link to the essay that some credit with establishing the original definition of the the term Deep State:


      1. So because Mr. Lofgren decided to change the definition from what it meant in Turkey to “I use the term to mean a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.”

        I think it is hogwash. It is an entrenched bureaucracy that keeps the government rolling regardless of who is in the Oval Office. To restaff those positions every 4 or 8 years would be too burdensome for the government to operate, even at the lowest possible levels that Libertarians dream of.It is still bullshit to call it the Deep State because the phrase has come to men something sinister.


        1. Wow. A whole 18 months or so. Someone (Jared or Eric, maybe) probably read it and told Mr. Trump about it and it glomed on to that orange tinted brain of his and he used it throughout his campaign and presidency. How many people that have run for office have grabbed something previously written or said and used it for their own devices?

          Sorry, Don, but the timing of the article makes it clear that my statement is quite possible.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s