Unprecedented unmaskings, wiretapping opposition campaigns, spying on journalists, directing federal agency power against political opponents
One of the most disturbing aspects of the federal investigation of former Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort is the credence that it gives to President Donald Trump’s concerns over the influence of the “deep state.”
This phenomenon, called the permanent state by former White House advisor Sebastian Gorka, has surprising resilience and a demonstrated ability to undermine the president’s agenda.
The deep state refers to career federal employees who advance their own agenda and manipulate public policy without accountability to our elected leaders or voters.
Federal agency employees gave a staggering 95 percent of their campaign contributions to oppose the current administration.
One need not subscribe to intricate conspiracy theories to believe that career bureaucrats and prior-administration holdovers systematically work against the current political leadership.
Federal agency employees gave a staggering 95 percent of their campaign contributions to oppose the current administration.
Political appointees leading these agencies are hard-pressed to counter the effects of their employees’ nearly unanimous and daily efforts to undermine their goals.
When President Trump tweeted in March 2017 that the prior administration wiretapped his campaign and the Trump Tower, the media treated the president’s claim not merely as untrue but downright deranged.
Intelligence officials responded immediately with steadfast and categorical denials. DNI director James Clapper and FBI director James Comey both insisted that President Trump’s tweet was not correct or that they had no information about the alleged wiretapping.
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017
We now know that Manafort, who by the way has a residence in Trump Tower, was indeed subject to a federal wiretap, according to media reports.
Now Messrs. Clapper and Comey, and their mainstream media defenders, are left with semantic arguments about “wiretapping” reminiscent of president Bill Clinton’s infamous claim defending his own sworn testimony because his veracity “depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
Consider also the tale of two investigations.
Special counsel Robert Mueller and his investigators deployed brass-knuckles tactics against Manafort, designed to terrify and disorient him and his wife. Intimidation tactics were on full display, bypassing the locks on their residence while they slept and subjected his wife to a weapons search during a predawn raid of the Manafort home.
These are highly unusual measures for white-collar offenses, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy explains.
In contrast, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton received kid-glove treatment for her own involvement in national security and corruption offenses.
In contrast, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton received kid-glove treatment for her own involvement in national security and corruption offenses.
The FBI permitted her to arrange a time to come in and talk with the investigators. There was no search of any of her residences, much less a traumatic predawn raid and spousal body search (can you imagine?).
Obama intel chief: It’s “conceivable” Manafort wiretap picked up conversations with Trump https://t.co/gFDLYOWnDG pic.twitter.com/uJfbhIuhqn
— The Hill (@thehill) September 21, 2017
Quite the contrary, then-attorney general Loretta Lynch engaged in an oddly timed chat on the tarmac with former president Clinton.
By no accident, this stealth meeting occurred where their private jets could offer a secluded meeting where security personnel could shield them from cameras and journalists and the attorney general and former president could talk about — just grandchildren and golf, of course. Nothing more.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch engaged in an oddly timed chat on the tarmac with former president Clinton.
Afterwards, Lynch directed Comey to use the term “matter” rather than “investigation.”
New evidence suggests that Comey predetermined that Clinton would not be charged, before investigators had even interviewed her or more than a dozen other witnesses.
Other examples abound.
Former United Nations ambassador Samantha Powell allegedly requested unmasking U.S. citizens at an average rate exceeding one request for each working day in 2016, including in the final days of the prior administration.
Samantha Powell requested unmasking U.S. citizens at an average rate exceeding one request for each working day in 2016.
Sheryl Atkinson, a former CBS reporter, outlined how she and other journalists also became targets of the deep state.
It looks like Obama did spy on Trump, just as he apparently did to me https://t.co/d6clOZADvp
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) September 21, 2017
Beginning in 2010 and leading up to the 2012 election, deep state efforts within the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative nonprofit groups.
The IRS’s defenders claimed that rogue personnel were acting alone rather than taking direction from higher-ups in the prior administration, revealing that the corruption was not with a particular politician but within the entire apparatus of a federal agency.
One of the key officials, former director of tax-exempt organizations Lois Lerner, took the fifth and refused to answer questions when called to testify before under oath. She has never been indicted for her role in weaponizing the IRS against political opposition and still receives her taxpayer-funded pension.
Lois Lerner has never been indicted for her role in weaponizing the IRS against political opposition.
Unprecedented unmaskings, wiretapping opposition campaigns, spying on journalists, directing federal agency power against political opponents: All of these actions were committed by unaccountable federal agency personnel in pursuit of retaining power and influence.
Is there a deep state working against the president’s agenda, protecting its own and targeting usurpers?
Perhaps we will never know for sure, but this week’s revelation of the wiretapping of Paul Manafort during and after the election is clearly relevant to this inquiry.
Article first published in The Hill in September 2017
