Fred Henneke, Attorney & Counselor-At-Law
The term “Deep State” has come to mean a cabal of unappointed professional bureaucrats working stealthily to undermine President Trump and prevent his re-election or foster his impeachment. There are no details as to how they are organized or coordinate their efforts; they just exist. It seems to me that the real Deep State citizens are those persons appointed by President Trump to positions in the White House or elsewhere throughout the Federal government that take great delight in leaking unfavorable anecdotes to the press or writing unflattering “tell all” books about the White House and the President.
Before I go any further, let me state that I served for eight years as a Foreign Service Officer. I am very proud of my service and the critical work done by the men and women in the Foreign Service and the entire State Department. My comments stem from that point of view.
I have no doubt but that there are persons working throughout the Federal government who are not supporters of President Trump as an individual and who would like nothing better than to see him out of office, one way or another. There are always persons with an opposing view on any subject. I know of many Foreign Service officers who spoke out through the appropriate channels against the Vietnam War, and paid the price in diminished career opportunities for their courage. When President Carter suddenly, overnight, made human rights a linchpin of his foreign policy, many older persons in the international relations agencies were caught completely off guard and did not look favorably upon the change. Change is always hard for some to accept and embrace.
The point I am trying to make, perhaps inartfully, is that not everyone who speaks out in opposition to President Trump is doing so out of personal animus to the President. Some, like Amarosa and her tell all book, do so out of revenge and a desire to benefit from their disloyalty to the President; no sense of service to the Nation is present. Their testimony (if you can call it that) stems from innuendo and a slanted point of view. Others, like Ambassador Bill Taylor, testify not with any gain in mind, for their testimony destroys any further career hopes, but out of a sense of duty and concern for our Nation. Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, General Mattis, General Kelly, the Inspector General of the Intelligence community, and so on, all swore an oath to “defend and protect the Constitution of the United States”. The facts and opinions derived from those facts that they bring forward are intended to further that sworn goal as they see it.
So, my fervent plea is that you not automatically label anyone whose testimony is not supportive of the President position as a member of the “Deep State” Are they a professional or elected or appointed? What do they have to gain from their testimony? Is their testimony based on fact or theory? Finally, if they really were a member of the “Deep State”, would they be revealing themselves? Let’s use our God-given ability to reason before we characterize.