'Resistance by Whistleblower' was Always Part of the Plan

President Donald Trump speaks during a Made in America showcase event on the South Lawn of the White House, Monday, July 15, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Donald Trump

President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a campaign rally, Thursday, Aug. 15, 2019, in Manchester, N.H. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

 

I came across a fascinating post today written by Legal Insurrection’s “New Neo,” who explains that the unprecedented resistance to the Trump presidency from the left is part of a plan that was hatched long before his Inauguration Day.

Whistle-blowing included.

He cites a Vanity Fair article that was published on February 1, 2017 entitled “An Anti-Trump Resistance Movement is Growing Within the U.S. Government.” It’s lede says, “The bureaucracy is fighting back.”

A U.S. diplomat in Africa told The New York Times that a “draft of a State Department letter of dissent had made its way through dozens of U.S. embassies abroad, accumulating hundreds of signatures from foreign service officers opposed to Donald Trump’s controversial executive order on immigration.” Within days, the draft contained over one thousand signatures.

Similar initiatives were taking place in other government agencies. Workers were simply refusing to carry out policies which they disagreed with. Recall the firing of acting Attorney General Sally Yates for her refusal to enforce the travel ban order. This was the start of the anti-Trump resistance movement.

The diplomat describes some of the tactics the resistance planned to use. He specifically mentions whistle-blowing and leaking to the press.

Others, however, view resistance as a part of the job. “Policy dissent is in our culture,” one diplomat in Africa, who signed the letter circulating among foreign diplomats, told The New York Times. “We even have awards for it,” this person added, in reference to the State Department’s “Constructive Dissent” award. One Justice Department employee told The Washington Post, “You’re going to see the bureaucrats using time to their advantage,” and added that “people here will resist and push back against orders they find unconscionable,” by whistle-blowing, leaking to the press, and lodging internal complaints. Others are staying in contact with officials appointed by President Obama to learn more about how they can undermine Trump’s agenda and attending workshops on how to effectively engage in civil disobedience, the Post reports.

In the next excerpt, an Obama State Department official tells a reporter he is entitled to defy Trump’s orders because he believes the President is a threat to national security.

When asked how the opposition emerging at this stage compares to past administrations, Tom Malinow­ski, who served as Obama’s assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, sarcastically told the Post, “Is it unusual? There’s nothing unusual about the entire national security bureaucracy of the United States feeling like their commander in chief is a threat to U.S. national security. That happens all the time. It’s totally usual. Nothing to worry about.”

The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway understood from the beginning what was happening. On January 17th, 2017, she wrote:

Dwight Eisenhower warned that if we didn’t stay vigilant, the military-industrial complex would start creeping into politics with pernicious motives all its own. The intelligence community’s war of leaks against Trump before he’s even taken office is just the latest questionably politicized action in the decades since Eisenhower’s farewell address. And it’s safe to say that the intelligence community pushing unproven and absurd allegations about a president-elect’s sexual perversions is probably way worse than anything Ike imagined.

In order to understand how we got to this perilous place and get a handle on what’s going on, it’s worth taking a closer look at the motives and allegations of political operatives in intelligence agencies, as well as the basic timeline of allegations of Russian electoral interference in the last few months. Far from discrediting Trump, it paints a worrisome portrait of the deep state gone rogue, desperate to stop a man who, whatever his considerable flaws, is an outsider to Washington.

Early on, Democratic politicians and pundits were issuing warnings to Trump on how to behave in his dealings with the intelligence community. He was the duly elected President of the United States.

Hemingway cites Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s unforgettable advice to Trump. In an appearance on MSNBC, he told host Rachel Maddow:

…President-elect Donald Trump is “being really dumb” by taking on the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia’s cyber activities.

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

Members of the “elite” media felt the need to educate the incoming President as well:

Presidential historian Timothy Naftali said on a CNN panel that Trump should stay “silent” lest harmful information be released against him.

Never-Trumper David Frum tweeted, “CIA message to Trump: you mess with us, get ready for a leakstorm of Biblical proportions.”

It would appear that the left had a plan from the beginning. Perhaps not a formal, organized plan. But most of them decided that, since they and all of their friends felt Trump was not a legitimate President and did not belong in the White House, that they didn’t have to implement his policies or treat him with respect. Nothing was off-limits. No matter how egregious or outrageous their statements or actions, liberals could always find an audience to nod approvingly. Yes, we understand.

They all thought they had the power to drive him out of Washington. They have thrown everything they could possibly conceive of at this man and he’s not only standing, he’s thriving.

They may think they’ve finally cornered him this time. That’s laughable.

Hail to the Chief!