Trump provides a compelling argument against "Deep State" conspiracy theory

In his interview with President Trump George Stephanopolous asked him - "If they [“they” being Comey, Strzok, et. al.] were determined to prevent you from becoming president, why wouldn’t they leak it beforehand?”

As part of his answer the President said -

“Had that gone out before the election, I-- I don’t think I could’ve-- I don’t think I would’ve had enough time to defend myself”

Exactly, Mr. President! All James Comey had to do is call a press conference, like he did when he announced a re-opening of the investigation into Hillary’s email just a week before the election, and announce that Trump and the Trump campaign were under investigation for conspiring with the Russioans? It would have, as Trump agrees, torpedoed Trump’s chances.

But, Comey didn’t do that. Strzok didn’t do that. No one from the “Deep State” did that. Comey took action that had a direct negative effect on Hillary, but said nothing about all of the allegations that were circulating against Trump and his campaign. Apply some logic, and you will see the “Deep State” conspiracy falls flat.


That sound you hear is all of the deep state conspiracy theorists heads exploding…

1 Like

Interesting “logic”. You do realize Hildawg won the popular vote?

I’m glad that’s a rational answer somewhere. :smile:

1 Like

Actually it was leaked prior to 2016 election…by James Baker to David Corn and 2 others.

Which has what to do with Trump defeating his own #DeepState dribble, exactly?

It wasn’t national news. Comey didn’t treat it the same way he treated Hillary. The “#DeepState” helped him get elected, using his own logic.


Yup it makes no sense

But you know victim mentality and all that…

Its not just a matter of “leaking” the investigation. One week before the election, James Comes announced the “reopening” of the Clinton e-mail investigation and polling showed that had a significant effect. If the FBI was lined up to stop Trump, they could have announced that they had opened an investigation into the coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians… but Comey did not do so. It would not have bene a leak, it would have simply been maintaining equivalence in how the campaigns were treated.

Someone, Trump and his followers believe that the FBI was trying to hurt their compaign, a conclusion simply not consistent with what happened.


I used to think liberals were smart. I have no idea why.

The story got zero traction. Mother Jones made one story on it.

If the Deep State and its Complicit Media was out to get Trump, every major network and media channel would have blasted the story everywhere.

1 Like

No, that’s not why.

Maybe…but If I recall I heard the “Pee Tape” just before the election.

I remembered laughing about it…and thinking desperation.

Liberals are…libs not so much. :wink:

Do you recall Bret Baier, Fox’s lead anchor, saying HILLARY INDICTMENT IMMINENT, SERVER ALMOST DEFINITELY HACKED, just days before the election, but then having to retract (after the damage was already done) a couple of days later? Because that actually happened.

Hillary got smacked with bad news very shortly before the election by R sources.

The LSM/federal investigative agencies/CoJ had every opportunity to influence the election, but what we actually got was Fox and R politician leaks influencing the election. If anything, we had Comey (Mr. Deep State himself) helping Trump. He could have hurt Trump if he wanted, and it would have been totally equal since he had done the same to Hillary. But he didn’t.

I do. She lost the electoral college, though, by a very slim margin. 77,000 votes in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan…Trump won those states by less than 1%. Logically speaking, if Comey was working against Trump, what was his motivation for announcing that the investigation into Hillary had been reopened?

You didn’t hear it.

You may think that you remember it that way, but the Steele Dossier was not known until after the election.


They simply ignore it.

Two things.

First, the Washington anti-Trumpers - including the media - had convinced themselves this was a shoo-in for Clinton, and they didn’t need to resort to posting what they knew was uncorroborated and unable to be corroborated.

They were afraid of being accused of throwing a stinking pile of garbage off the front stoop with ZERO proof that any of it happened, and didn’t want to risk tarnishing their brass when she was going to win anyway. Trump was already warning his folks about “rigged” elections and they didn’t want to confirm his comment in any way - especially since he was going to lose.

Second, the FBI under Comey had so bungled the Clinton thing that they didn’t want to open another can of worms and be accused of yet even more interference with the election, when AGAIN, they knew she was a shoo-in.

What this all boils down to is their complete inability to see him win. They just didn’t believe it possible and thought they didn’t need to haul out the big guns and open themselves up to scrutiny when they did.

It was only AFTER he won that they realized they needed to employ “the insurance policy”


Well you dont know why so who cares