Everything You Need to Know About Deep State

May 29, 2017

What is “Deep State”?

Origins of the term “Deep State” trace back to Turkey. The Turkish term “derin devlet” – deep state – referred to a cabal of government officials with off-the-record ties to various crime syndicates. Turkish politicians leveraged these connections to carry out state-ordered killings – among other dark deeds – in efforts to silence dissenting communist Kurdish insurgents.

As noted in The Economist: “Starting in the 1950s Turkey’s deep state sponsored killings, engineered riots, colluded with drug traffickers, staged “false flag” attacks and organised massacres of trade unionists. Thousands died in the chaos it fomented.”

Deep State in America

American pundits and politicians use the term “Deep State” to describe a coordinated effort amongst appointed (unelected!) government officials – in all branches of government – to undermine and undercut the democratically elected president.

Leaking private conversations, memos and discussions in spades to whoever shares the vision of a Trump-free future (The New York Times and The Washington Post proceed to dislocate their shoulders, hyperbolically raising their arms screeching *me!*, *ME!*), these unnamed government officials attempt to erode trust and confidence in the Trump administration.

Due to their unbridled enmity for all things Trump, liberal news outlets have effectively jettisoned any semblance of journalistic ethics, opting for the Shaun King route of reporting. Forget verifying sources, if it fits the narrative it must be true!

This, in a nutshell, is how we get headlines like this from Business Insider that read, “Trump reportedly called his national security adviser at 3 a.m. to ask if the US wanted a strong or weak dollar.”
The Business Insider article cites a HuffPost piece titled “Leaks Suggest Trump’s Own Team Is Alarmed By His Conduct,” which itself attempts to verify these incendiary claims against President Trump by citing unnamed, anonymous individuals: “according to two sources familiar with Flynn’s accounts of the incident.”

As another example, The Hill – a widely read political news outlet – ran the headline “NSC officials include Trump’s name as often as possible so he reads memos: report.” The article claims, “Reported by Reuters,” which then links to a Reuters headline that reads: “Embroiled in controversies, Trump seeks boost on foreign trip.”

And if you thought, “Finally! I can now see real reputable sources,” think again! The Reuters report says, “National Security Council officials have strategically included Trump’s name in as many paragraphs as we can because he keeps reading if he’s mentioned, according to one source, who relayed conversations he had with NSC officials.” One unnamed source (just one!) is used to back up inordinate assertions about the president.

Back in January, CNN ran the headline “Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him.” This came after various (completely unknown) intelligence agency chiefs decided to declare an ex-MI6 operative a “credible source.” CNN took this as a green light to publish wildly unsubstantiated claims that high-ranking intelligence officers (again, completely unknown individuals) had briefed Obama and Trump on Russian possession of compromising intelligence on the then president-elect.

Back in mid-February, General Mike Flynn resigned as National Security Advisor following a Washington Post report titled, “National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say.” Citing (UNNAMED and ANONYMOUS) “current and former U.S. officials,” the report accuses Flynn of discussing U.S. sanctions against Russia with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak prior to Trump’s inauguration, contradicting Flynn’s earlier denial of such discussions.

Shortly after, General Mike Flynn resigned as National Security Advisor.

However, as noted by Eli Lake at Bloomberg, Flynn’s ousting (in less than one month) was a political assassination. Rejecting the notion that Flynn was simply fired for misleading the Vice President, Lake writes that Flynn’s actions were “neither illegal nor improper.” Moreover, it isn’t even clear that Flynn lied, to begin with. The likely explanation is, “he was thrown under the bus.”

Gleaming at Flynn’s firing, prominent anti-Trump Republican, and editor-at-large of The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol alluded to the “Deep State,” tweeting:


Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.

@BillKristol —  8:36 AM – 14 Feb 2017


If you were under the presumption that the “deep state” in America – and the broader attempt of Intelligence Community (IC) officials to derail Trump’s presidency – is a wild conspiracy theory (like that insane one that’s been circulating the internet for a while now claiming The New York Times is a reputable news organization) you’re in the minority.

As The Washington Post reported, a poll showed 48% of Americans believing the “deep state” exists, while only 35% dismiss it as a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory.

More interestingly, however, in an era of stark political polarization, is bipartisan belief in the existence of a “deep state;” 45% of Republicans, 46% of Democrats and 51% of independents believe a “deep state” exists.

With contemptible standards of reporting and journalism resulting in a bevy of headlines based on purely unverified leaks, you’d have to be either willfully ignorant, or a Democrat #Resistance-devotee (but I repeat myself) to adamantly affirm that no “deep state” effort to undermine the Trump administration exists.

As recently as a month ago, CNN ran a headline reading: “US officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians.” The article references “US officials” as the basis of its claims:

The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, US officials told CNN.

A May 15 report (Not just any report! Anonymously sourced and unverified, so you KNOW it’s trustworthy!) titled “Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador” asserted:

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials.

This week, The New York Times printed the headline, “Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer.” Predictably, the report is bereft of any verifiable evidence or sources, instead citing “unnamed US officials:”

American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers, according to three current and former American officials familiar with the intelligence.

If leftists now want to claim every unverified whisper leaked out of the intelligence community is true, George W. Bush and his intelligence sources on Iraq would really appreciate an apology.

Apparently, this is what now qualifies as “breaking news” for the mainstream media. Eye-catching clickbait headlines founded on merely anonymous sources and leaks from unnamed US officials.

As the Daily Wire‘s Robert Kraychik noted, The Washington Post’s anonymously sourced, unverified article, “Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador,” prompted its rambunctious employees to regale with ecstasy as their report went viral, applauding their smug-selves like Al Qaeda’s mission-control on 9/11.

These unnamed sources comprising the “deep state” might indeed be infused with contempt for Donald Trump in their desire to undermine his presidency through their barrage of leaks to the media, but it’s the mainstream media itself that is elevating gossip girls to national truth tellers.

Originally Published on The Daily Wire