The “Deep State”
20 plus years ago I was elected the local President of a NY State public employees union representing professional, scientific, and technical workers, a somewhat curious occurrence considering I am/was a conservative and generally anti-union. Nevertheless, I won by a 2:1 vote margin and was fairly popular, if I may say so; it proved to be a revealing experience. One of the members was a middle-aged guy with whom I had a friendly acquaintance. He was always affable and seemed perfectly competent and dedicated, but there was always a vague stain on his reputation- he was barely tolerated by management and never seemed to be going anywhere in his career. At times he suggested there was an ill-defined conspiracy against him, which he attributed to his declining to be part of the old-boys network from years past, the kind of claim to which one responds, “Is that right?”
One day, as an office building was being shuffled about, another employee came across a file with his name and, assuming it was his, handed it to him. As he looked through it he came to quite a realization- the folder contained all sorts of management documents and communications ridiculing and demeaning him, going back years. In essence he was accidentally given a “secret” file that proved he was indeed a target of an administrative conspiracy, in violation of numerous contractual and policy rules. Keep in mind we were not a nerve center of NY State government, but a rather remote outpost, so to speak. From the union standpoint we had a field day, with one of the few administrative people with integrity admitting, “We have no excuse or defense.” I learned during my union time his case was not altogether unique, and that there are always plenty of petty people lining up to curry favor with bosses by disparaging others and bosses who bask in their own petty power and who live to have their boots licked.
Prior to my union role I thought people who expressed feelings of being targeted by management were a little overly sensitive, maybe a little in a conspiracy mode. That I was wrong was eye opening and has led me to this conclusion: certainly is a “Deep State.” This doesn’t imply shadowy cabals meeting in back hallways of government buildings or anonymous hotels and communicating in code. Rather it simply adds an additional ingredients to the usual mix of personal ambition, greed, a willingness to stab colleagues in the back, and yearning for pats on the back from the higher ups: a sense of self-righteousness, intrigue, and feeling of being part of something “BIG.” When there is a figure such as Trump who inspires such hatred from so many players- the elite media, celebrities, and politicians, and especially those who desperately cling to the comfortable and profitable status quo- it would be surprising to not have a “Deep State.”
Whistleblowing can be an honorable thing. The road that led to my above mentioned union activities, and indeed to much of my subsequent life, began with “whistleblowing” about significant and chronic medical malpractice I discovered. My mistake was “blowing” to a corrupt management person, but without anonymity or other protections.
Anonymity is understandable, especially in what may be the most common form of “whistleblowing-“ reporting child abuse. When a you witnesses some form of abuse, you want to be able to report it to the authorities without worrying that Bubba is going to show up at your house to accost you in his rusty pick-up truck adorned with Confederate flags(stereotypes can be fun!). Of course, however, anonymity can be wielded as a tool of revenge and other bad things, as follows:
A very honorable person I well know was an elected member of a small local government board, and at times was in opposition to the appointed supervisor of the department, which apparently annoyed the supervisor. She decided that the best course of action was to make an anonymous call to accuse the board member of sexually abusing his son. Ultimately, of course, everything was totally discredited, but not before he and his family were investigated (the pre-teen son had to appear at the state police barracks to be interviewed as part of the process) and almost devastated. Pretty much everyone knew the identity of the “whistleblower” but because of laws protecting anonymity nothing could be done.
If you are a “deep state operative,” in other words an overpaid government employee who wants to curry favor with his boss, who wants to screw over the big boss, what better way to start the investigative ball rolling and accusations flying than being an anonymous “whistleblower.” And once the investigative foot is in the door, there are no limits. One of the best parts is the “whistleblower” will be called by some a hero and even a martyr, and only fellow-travelers (and House Democrats) will know who he (or she) is.
The High Crime
There is a trick as old as time in which something is described in a manner so as to minimize or maximize an act, event, or statement. We pretty much all do this to some extent, but often for selfish reasons.
In the early 1980’s I was on the medical staff of a Federal prison, comprised of one physician and six PA’s. Also on the staff was a pharmacist, who could be really funny but his main goal was not doing his job, per se, but advancement in the bureaucracy, and he was more than happy to lick the boots of the bosses and stab his fellow workers in the back. One day at the end of the regular shift a convict needed a cast. I happened to have the most casting experience and was happy to stay late- with no request for overtime- to do the job. We had the old style plaster material and it can make a bit of a mess, mostly plaster that falls and dries on the floor, and I made an average, trivial mess. I assumed one of the many convicts assigned as janitor to the clinic would clean it up.
The next morning I was greeted by the pharmacist, yelling- “you should be ASHAMED of yourself, it’s almost like you threw plaster on the walls and even the ceiling. You should have cleaned it up. SHAME on you!!” His reaction would have been appropriate if he discovered me having drug-fueled orgy with multiple convicts. No doubt he reported my egregious behavior to the boss, who himself enjoyed having his buttocks kissed.
On July 25, 2019 Trump made a phone call to the new President of the Ukraine that apparently had any number of witnesses. One of them mentioned it, perhaps with malice (a “Deep Stater?”) to an employee of the CIA who apparently was taken aback by what he or she heard. This person, after consulting with Democrat staffers in Congress, decided anonymous “whistleblowing” was in order. And thus began the current push for impeachment, or something that gives the appearance of impeachment.
Though I’m speculating, it’s easy to imagine the political strategy was to hope and assume Trump would stonewall, leading to outraged accusations of obstruction and other high crimes and misdemeanors (the American people have a right to know!). Perhaps unexpectedly, Trump quickly released the transcript, thereby thwarting plan A. The 59 words worthy of overturning the election of 2016 were as follows: “The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into that…it sounds horrible to me.”
The son in reference, Hunter, is the stereotypical privileged, born with a silver spoon in his mouth (Yale law school, of course) degenerate. The issue at hand was that he was given a seat on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas concern. Needless to say, young (middle-aged) Hunter was qualified for the position about as much as I’m qualified to dance with the Bolshoi Ballet. Could it be that he was only put on the board because of his connections, especially his Vice President father? There is no other possible conclusion. So why did his father, as Vice President, brag that he successfully strong-armed the government of the Ukraine at the time with threats of withholding aid if a prosecutor investigating his son’s company wasn’t fired? BTW, seats on boards aren’t particularly taxing or time consuming. And Hunter was making a month what requires a year for many families to earn, at least $50,000.
Plan B of the Democrats is/was kind of a fusion that 1st, the aforementioned 59 words suggested in and of themselves something so horrendous as to qualify for an impeachable High Crime. And 2nd, they were somehow linked to foreign aid, in other words, “If you, the Ukrainian government, don’t investigate Biden you ain’t gettin no money.” To me, a lukewarm Trump supporter, his 59 words alone sound somewhere between tortured syntax and goofy, but certainly no reasonable person could conclude they constitute a crime. As far as the “quid pro quo” idea that so enamors the Democrats, I’m fairly certain that most, if not essentially all, foreign aid is contingent on something: “we’ll give you this if you ramp up your drug interdiction,” “we’ll give you that if you take a tougher line on terrorism,” etc. Or, as in the case of Obama and some African countries, we’ll give you money if you promise to embrace and celebrate homosexuality.
Hunter Biden, a well established degenerate, was given lots of money to do something for which he had no qualifications whatsoever other than being well connected. A reasonable person could conclude there is a prima facie argument to be made that this was an attempt to buy influence, one of the most basic forms of corruption. The question I’ve never seen asked is this: should Hunter Biden be exempt from investigation because he is well connected? If a sleazy lobbyist or underworld figure were suspected of fraud that involved another country, would anyone care that a President said, “I’ll authorize aid to your country if you promise to investigate this guy from your end.” The reasonable conclusion is that no one would bat an eye.