After a Post article on the tussles of executing the search warrant on Mar a Lago, evidence seems to be rising that the FBI is more pro-Trump than his personal Javert. The Clinton server fiasco was in response to fear that pro-Trump agents would leak the second announcement anyway.
Is the Deep State really conservative after all?
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
It is virtually certain that Hillary Clinton would have won the 2016 election were it not for the egregiously inappropriate, pro-Trump behavior of the FBI. That could not be more clear, but reality does nothing to deter these MAGATS from claiming victimhood.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Paywalled for me.
LikeLike
This is the gist of it.
“Some of those field agents wanted to shutter the criminal investigation altogether in early June,” the Post reported, adding that FBI agents were “simply afraid” and “worried taking aggressive steps investigating Trump could blemish or even end their careers.” The FBI did not exhibit this worry in 2016, when it publicly announced that it was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified documents, an announcement that, even with all the other mistakes her campaign made, likely cost Clinton the election. That decision was made in part because then-Director James Comey feared that pro-Trump FBI agents would leak the details if he did not announce them publicly. The federal investigation into the Trump campaign, by contrast, was properly kept confidential until after the election. As one agent told the reporter Spencer Ackerman in 2016, “The FBI is Trumpland.”
That and a lot of pushback on how to get classified document back from within the FBI.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What actionable lesson do you think we should learn from this?
LikeLike
“What actionable lesson do you think we should learn from this?”
Easy.
MAGA should give up its whiny bullshit about the “Deep State” and the FBI being out to bring down an innocent victim – Donald Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, I’m not into scapegoating.
LikeLike
Not into scapegoating. You just did when you said we should eliminate the FBI…
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Sorry, I’m not into scapegoating.”
Really? How would anyone know that from what you post?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because I don’t say things like, “MAGA should give up its whiny bullshit about the ‘Deep State’ and the FBI being out to bring down an innocent victim – Donald Trump.”
LikeLike
“Because I don’t say things like . . . ”
You obviously do not understand the word “scapegoating.” Here, let me help. It refers to the practice of blaming someone who is not responsible when something goes wrong.
My statement – that you say you do not say things like – was urging MAGA to stop scapegoating the FBI and the “Deep State” for Trump’s many failures.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That the FBI as an organization is hardly trying to destroy Republicans. As the article also mentions, the FBI is a police organization. Police are overwhelmingly conservative by nature. The FBI is no exception.
There are more investigations looking into why serious threats known by various agencies was not acted upon or passed by the various agencies, including the FBI. This could very well explain that enough pro Trump bureaucrats wanted the coup to succeed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “That the FBI as an organization is hardly trying to destroy Republicans.”
I didn’t know that was a thing, but OK. As I posted recently, I am more concerned that the FBI as an organization is trying to destroy Catholics, like my wife and son.
LikeLike
The FBI is not out to destroy Catholics like your wife and son unless they are plotting violence. Are they?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The FBI is not out to destroy Catholics…unless they [Catholics] are plotting violence.”
You assume too much.
LikeLike
He assumed NOTHING. You brought up the idea that the FBI is out for your family because of their Catholicism. Which is a LIE. Unless they are threatening violence against school administrators. That would be an illegal activity that SHOULD be investigated fully.
LikeLike
“You assume too much.”
I am not assuming anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
WTF. You made a very incendiary comment about the FBI trying to destroy Catholics.
Back it up if you can. Not just your patented “you assume too much” or so what.
Or just say you might have over reacted.
IMO
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Or just say you might have over reacted.”
He doesn’t over react. He reacts the same way all of the time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Deep State is more statist than left or right, its interest is in its own power.
I don’t get WAPO, but there appears to be an article there that bears on this, perhaps someone might want to check it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/01/fbi-dispute-trump-mar-a-lago-raid/
LikeLike
RE: “The Deep State is more statist than left or right, its interest is in its own power.”
The elites that manage the Deep State might have an interest in whipping up anti-Trump hysteria. That’s as much as I can make of this story.
Recent history suggests that the FBI is in need of reform or possibly elimination. The whole pro-Trump/anti-Trump way of thinking about that strikes me as a waste of time and possibly a distraction.
LikeLike
“… whipping up anti-Trump hysteria.”
How so?
The FBI, like any organization, might need some reforms. But so far there are no replacements to deal with interstate crime and, more importantly, domestic terrorism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “How so?”
You posted the article. Do you not see it as contributing to pro-Trump/anti-Trump competition?
LikeLike
Not in any meaningful way other than trying to find out if Republican assertions have merit.
The MAGA movement might be a watershed for Democracy as we practice it. Debating it as new information arises is part of what we do.
Already, Don has shifted positions from Deep State as anti-Republican to pro-bureaucrat rather than admit either there is no political Deep State, just bureaucrats practicing Randism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Already, Don has shifted positions from Deep State as anti-Republican to pro-bureaucrat rather than admit either there is no political Deep State, just bureaucrats practicing Randism.”
My memory of Dr. Tabor’s positions on the Deep State doesn’t match yours. I don’t recall him ever complaining that it is anti-Republican.
LikeLike
If we are going to be picky, how about pro-Democrat?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“My memory of Dr. Tabor’s positions on the Deep State doesn’t match yours.”
Your memory is failing or selective. Dr. Tabor has referred to the Deep State as “partisan” countless times. From the context, it is clear that he did not mean it was partisan on behalf of the GOP.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“My memory”…
Seems to be an ongoing issue with you any time you are challenged by your own words or your defense of someone else’s. Neuriva was recommended to you once before. (Or did you forget that too?) May I do so again?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is a non-paywalled link to the source article for the Atlantic one.
https://wapo.st/3JaSTBy
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d go with disassembly.
Keep the lab and the database for assisting state and local police, but limit police powers to crimes within the government,
LikeLike
“I’d go with disassembly.”
Okay, so who will investigate federal crimes and under whose supervision? Who will be responsible for trying to prevent the next Oklahoma City or January 6th?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No one. That is the point. Ever since the Oathkeepers and their ilk were busted, (plans, weapons caches, threats…) the right wants to avoid that in the future. “That” meaning the power and pseudo-patriotic Brown shirt fervor being exposed and thwarted.
I swear some folks think Oklahoma victims were collateral damage in the war against the United States by gangs and their supporters. That is the kind of folks we are dealing with. FBI is just a barrier to their terrorist bent. Hang Mike Pence is still their mantra, but less overtly.
Like Putin’s “Wolves”, the scum filled gangs are deadbeats who relish violence on the slightest pretense. Like a president who says “stand by”.
Their supporters just can’t stomach the actual violence up close and personal. But dream big.
Of course this is my humble opinion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Domestic terrorism is real. Who should do the heavy lifting, investigation, undercover work, etc.?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Let me guess. Barney Fife and his one bullet armory?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you are so consumed and worried about “grooming” realize this. Illegal activity that crosses state lines falls under federal law enforcement. THe Sheriff of Isle of Wight County has no jurisdiction to go after an alleged cgoomer who has used the internet to victimize someone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That article was the basis for the Atlantic one.
Don, now since this has come to light, you are reversing course on Deep State. It is no longer a liberal bastion, but both.
To me this smacks of “there is no deep state” other than the classic “bureaucrats want to keep their jobs”.
But the conservative bent of the FBI explains a lot more that the liberal, anti-Trump theories.
A lot more.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would be cautious of any reasoning that depends on a litmus test.
LikeLike
Not just their jobs, their power.
They seek to rule from behind the curtain, unimpaired by those elected officials.
LikeLike
Here is a non-paywalled copy.
https://wapo.st/3JaSTBy
It is a good read from the stand point of how much time, effort and, yes, deference was involved. That Trump was a president and its implications was debated at length.
It definitely was not a “Get Trump” deep state move.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It does appear that the FBI had a great deal more respect for the law than the Justice Dept.
LikeLike
It was a complicated issue. Never has a president absconded with thousands of files, hundred classified and refused to return them to the archives. Nor has one ever refused to concede. Nor planned an attack on Congress and refuse to call it off while encouraging the mob to get Pence.
I would allow some debate among those in the DOJ as to how to handle this. That it took so long is a credit to the DOJ to solve a sticky issue.
LikeLiked by 2 people