How Troublesome Presidents Are Disposed of

Source: Institute for Political Economy.

I disagree with the writer about Joe Biden’s classified documents scandal. I cannot dispute his theory that the scandal reflects a deep state conspiracy to prevent Biden from running for a second presidential term, but I am more inclined to a different view that is vastly more sinister.

(Briefly, my view is that the deep state put Biden in office because he is incompetent. Here is a commentary that explores that possibility.)

Still, the writer cogently portrays the deep state from the perspective of someone who has worked at the highest levels of government. I certainly agree with him that America as founded no longer exists.

67 thoughts on “How Troublesome Presidents Are Disposed of

        1. “Well, that cackle is distinctive”

          Oh, I am very sure that we will be hearing a lot about the timbre of future President Harris’s voice in the years ahead. And her love life too. That is just the way you people roll.

          Snicker. Snicker.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Trump is irrelevant to Harris’s distortion of one of our founding documents.

            You have a hard time staying on topic when defending the indefensible.


          2. …”when defending the indefensible.”

            You continue to defend the indefensible. You keep trying to say that Trump is irrelevant. when he remains very relevant. Just ask all the election deniers who lost elections because they backed his BIG LIE.

            You attack ANY Democrat who steps out of line, while ignoring what went on for 4 years. Hell, you believe the George Santos (if that is his real name) should be able to remain in Congress. But if a Democrat was accused of doing anything even remotely close to what he did, you would be screaming for their expulsion and beheading.


          3. As long as you have suffered from DDS (and I don’t mean dentistry), or TBS, you have a lot of nerve. You continue to defend Trump, but you attack Democrats for flaws that are minor by comparison.

            I am sorry if my calling out your hypocrisy sends you into the “it’s all TDS all the time” rhetoric. But until you take the time and ADMIT that there are bigger issues with Trump than with all of the Democrats rolled together you cam just stop talking about any little thing Dems have done. And until the entire GOP repudiates Trump and Trumpism, he will remain relevant.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Again, pointing out that Trump was off topic is not an endorsement.

            No matter what Biden or Harris or other Democrats do, your answer is ‘But Trump…’

            It is impossible to discuss an issue that way.


          5. It is not about pointing out what Trump did. it IS pointing out that YOU attack relentlessly Democrats who have done fare less worse than Trump…WHO YOU CONSISTENLTY DEFEND. You want it both ways over a couple of judges and some fanciful idea over the deep state and taxes.

            It is impossible to discuss with you anything because of your pure STATED hatred for Democrats while defending the most corrupt, incompetent President since Harding.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. “your answer is ‘But Trump…’”

            Don, be honest now. You are as guilty of whataboutism as anyone here. The whole classified document fiasco has been a rich source.

            Just sayin’.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. Oh, have the courts ruled on the merits of Trump’s claims of ownership?

            That does not mean I think Trump will prevail in all of these claims, but they remain under dispute.


          8. “That does not mean I think Trump will prevail in all of these claims, but they remain under dispute.”


            What is wrong with you? Really? Trump had ZERO legitimate claim to own the classified documents found in his possession AFTER he had lied under oath that he had none. I do not need to wait for the jury in his criminal trial to settle imaginary disputes to know what he has done.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. So, you concede that the ownership remains disputed . . .

            I concede no such thing. The “ownership” won’t even be an issue in Trump’s criminal trial. The Presidential Records Act is clear as are the facts of Trumps thefts. And, BTW, what part of a false affidavit is beyond your ability to comprehend?

            My first comment was spot on – Sad.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. The Presidential Records act does not prohibit the President retaining copies of unclassified documents, nor the originals of personal communications while President.


          11. “The Presidential Records act does not prohibit the President retaining copies of unclassified documents, nor the originals of personal communications while President.”

            Neither of which are at issue.

            And, BTW, the note left by Obama for his successor is a historical document that is the property of the American people and not something for some Saudi collector.

            Liked by 2 people

          12. What disputed documents? It wasn’t until the search turned up 11,000 documents including 300 classified ones that a dispute was even raised. And the special master that Trump wanted got the job.

            Hard to dispute if you don’t know what exactly he had. Plus Trump kept telling the lie that each trove was all he had.

            Presidential papers belong to us. Period. Even the ones, unfortunately, that Trump tore up and Meadows burned. Exclamation point.

            Biden and Trump are both being investigated for keeping classified documents. There is no hypocrisy there. That Biden made comments about sloppy handling by Trump probably indicated that Biden had no idea that he had some himself. But that is just speculation.

            Liked by 2 people

          13. The Archives and Trump were in negotiation over the documents for over a year before the raid. The Archives had sent people to examine the documents over the past year.


          14. You have a strange notion of negotiation.

            The archive was allowed to get some back after begging. Then a visit, followed by a subpoena followed by a search warrant. That is obstruction, not negotiation. And that is the primary charge, obstruction, that will be applied if at all.

            I give you credit for persistence on the “negotiation”. But it’s a lie and I am sure you know that.

            Let’s make this simple:

            You had a house guest for a few weeks or months. He could use your bikes, maybe a car, some tools, even shoot your guns.

            He leaves and then you find the bike, a gun and some tools are gone. Along with the car.

            You call him and he gives you your car back and says that is all he took. Finally, you call the law and a warrant finds everything else.

            Now you hear he wants to negotiate on some other of your possessions. And he really meant to negotiate earlier.

            Negotiate, really? Whether he keeps your possessions or not.

            A president is a temporary house guest of ours.

            Liked by 2 people

          15. Not a good example.

            Here’s a better one. Say you worked for a employer and one of the supervisors tries to frame you for malfeasance while you were working there.

            But, suspecting the frame, you kept records of what you did while employed there to establish your innocence later on. Now, the employer claims your records, necessary to your defense, belong to him and demands you hand them over, likely to be destroyed or kept from you when you need them.

            You offer him copies, but the originals, which can be forensically dated, you decline to hand over.

            There you go, much more like the actual situation.


          16. “Are you claiming that elements of the deep state did not attempt to frame Trump?”

            Apparently, you are. Delusional, but no different than any other of your speculative nonsense.

            If you have proof of efforts to “frame” him in any way, shape, or form, I am sure the forum would love to see it.

            No need to frame someone when they perform criminal acts all by themselves.


          17. “Did the FBI not use the Steele Dosier to defraud the FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign?”


            That would be a crime. Defrauding a court is a serious offense. No one has been convicted of such a crime. One lawyer – according to the judge doing the sentencing – used an “inappropriate shortcut” in a warrant application email. Inspector General Horowitz concluded that political bias did not compromise the FBI’s handling of the Russia investigation. And after years of looking John Durham failed to find anything of note.

            And, BTW, what is the “frame” of which you speak? What crime did they create false evidence in support of?

            Liked by 1 person

          18. “I didn’t say it was as successful frame.”
            Uh, it wasn’t a frame. You did not even try to name the crime he was being framed for.

            Trump’s campaign did collude with Russian agents and actors. It brought the scrutiny on itself.

            As for prosecution, have you forgotten already that the Trump-appointed John Durham spent three years and millions of dollars without making any kind of case against anybody in the “deep state.”

            Liked by 1 person

          19. …”the corrupt Boden DOJ “…

            Funny how only Democratic DOJ’s are corrupt. You are so full of hatred for Dems, you are blind to any other reality, except for the one that is in your head. The same kind of delusional “reality” that you claim others cannot have, or have acknowledged, because of gender dysphoria or other mental issues.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. “Who the hell does she think she is editing the Declaration of Indepence?”

            Reminds me of “You didn’t build that.” Let the faux outrage blossom!

            But for the record she did not even try to “quote” the Declaration of Independence as your lying liar of a source declared. You people can never stop lying. The truth never works for you so instead call a leading politician ugly names, snicker at her voice, and lie about what she says.

            Also, for the record, the Declaration of Independence was not a “Pro-life” manifesto as this faux outrage would make it. Abortion was legal and widely practiced in 1776 and on through the mid-19th century.

            Liked by 2 people

          21. “Trump is not in line to replace Biden and it thus irrelevant.”

            A complete lack of intellectual honesty is showing when someone expresses outrage at Harris’s unremarkable words and defends Trump whose disrespect for the Constitution goes far beyond his words calling for its suspension.

            Liked by 2 people

          22. “Are you claiming that elements of the deep state did not attempt to frame Trump?”

            Uh, we now know that “elements of the deep state” were working for Russia who wanted to help Trump. Specifically, Charles McGonigal a senior FBI agent who was supposed to be stopping Russian oligarchs meddling in our affairs was – it is charged – being paid by them.

            Beyond that alleged individual criminality, the idea that the “deep state” was trying to frame Trump is the product of diseased thinking – either your own or something you enjoy parroting because you hate America.

            Liked by 1 person

  1. “I certainly agree with him that America as founded no longer exists.”

    Thank goodness. Slavery. Travel by horse. Little manufacturing mainly an agricultural society. 40 year lifespans. No health care and primitive medical science.

    I understand what you meant, but what you meant has to consider the difference between an agrarian society and a manufacturing one.

    Where independent farmers were the staple and the ideal for the Jeffersonians, the transition to mostly wage earners in an industrial nation has a different set of priorities. And part of that is a system to cushion the effects of capitalism for the average employee.

    In other words, industrial and tech societies need healthy, educated and moderately secure workers to tap for the risk takers.

    In my opinion, the idea that government just need to have a good military and courts is a fools errand if capitalist economies are to survive.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “And part of that is a system to cushion the effects of capitalism for the average employee.”

      I can’t think of a single Founder or Founder’s written statement that expressed even the slightest concern about cushioning the effects of capitalism for the average employee. So, if I wanted to resurrect and strengthen the principles on which America is founded, the idea that government should protect the people from capitalism would be the fist thing I’d do away with.


    2. The effects of capitalism on the average worker have been to raise them from abject poverty and exploitation to the freedom to find the true value of their labor in the marketplace.

      The case for capitalism

      “Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.” ― Walter E. Williams


      1. Geez, you and John apparently think I don’t
        like capitalism.

        Knee jerk reaction much?

        What my point was is simple. Modern industrial countries need educated, healthy and reasonably secure workers from management to wage earners.

        Let the investors and risk takers innovate and create. But don’t leave the vast majority out to dry when things go south. That is Third World thinking.

        The pandemic showed the difference. The very wealthy increased their net worths while the average wage earners relied on programs to keep shelter and food available.

        We have some safety nets, but they are poorly funded and scattershot. We have very expensive healthcare, but millions who have little or no access. So we have high maternal and infant mortality rates, for example.

        This is another topic, of course, but it has been debated many times.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Some workers live within their means and save for a rainy day or retirement, and others run up debt to live beyond their means.

          Why should the former be taxed to bail out the latter?


          1. What kind of juvenile thinking saddles job providers with permanently bailing out former employees who live irresponsibly?

            An employer owes his employees their wages and agreed benefits. They do not owe them anything after a company goes out of business or downsizes.


          2. “They do not owe them anything after a company goes out of business or downsizes.”

            Our country disagrees. That is why we mandate unemployment insurance.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. No kidding. But the insurance companies, via premiums paid by employers, will pay the fired employees until they can secure other employment. As they should.

            Parental leave, child day care, sick leave are all common to industrial societies ,except ours which are sporadic and often insufficient.

            None of this is anti-capitalist. Owners still own. But the privilege of running a business in a stable, secure nation like ours is not without costs.

            Liked by 2 people

  2. Decided to dig a little deeper into the post. It seems the author is a MAJOR conspiracy theorist, anti-Semite, RT (Russia Today) paid, pro-Putin economist. Any piece that opens with “Tucker Carlson provides an excellent 12 minute report about the CIA’s removal of President Kennedy and President Nixon.” isn’t worth considering as legitimate discourse. Even Carlson has admitted he isn’t a reporter or news gatherer. In fact he used that defense in one of the civil suits against his rhetoric.

    You can read all about him here.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “Any piece that opens with ‘Tucker Carlson provides an excellent 12 minute report about the CIA’s removal of President Kennedy and President Nixon.’ isn’t worth considering as legitimate discourse.”

      Discourse is what you make of it. What have you made here?


        1. ” Debate would be to defend your source as reliable, unbiased and truthful.”

          Apparently they don’t have to hold those characteristics. They just need to be “interesting”. At least that is what he said on a different thread.

          Facts don’t mean diddly. Opinions, no matter how based in fiction, just have to be interesting.


          1. IMO, the right is much more sensitive to conspiracies among their constituents. It’s is its modus operandi and has been for decades. Outrage sells whether grounded in truth or not.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. “What have you made here?”

        The following points.
        1)The author is a conspiracy theorist knows no bounds. A Holocaust denier who profits from his lies.
        2) Tucker Carlson used the defense of “why should anyone believe what I have to say” in lawsuits he was party to. Any piece that opens with ANYTHING from Carlson should immediately be looked at with a jaded eye.
        3) Most relevant, YOU continue to post questionable garbage concerning important topics. I call you out for it. You try to deflect from MY point by attempting to defend indefensible garbage

        Liked by 1 person

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s