The scurry of rats: Ohr worried Comey's firing threatened to expose their plot

Whoa Nellie! Some may get that. Sounds like a CONspiracy to me to interfere with (S)elections.

"Bruce Ohr, who wrote to...Christopher Steele, worried that President Trump's firing of now former FBI director James Comey would expose them all."

How could someone so stupid rise that high in government? Just boggles the mind.

How could someone so stupid rise that high in government?

The stupid rise fast in government.

The first time I was sent to DC I was to told expect to be underwhelmed. I was not misled.

I was employed by a company that was a sub to NASA for many years. The levels of incompetence in the higher echelons was mind boggling. Most had been moved to positions that could cause little damage. Others, very dangerous.

They never thought she would lose.

These people are stupid.

It’s a well known thing called ‘The Peter Principle.”

You rise to the level of your incompetence..................

"Their plot" is already totally exposed to the DJT and co. They are throwing up their hands to block the light but it just highlights the dirt and blood on their hands.

Their (being the Progressive movement's) "plot" was to complete the prior Presidential candidate's promise to "fundamentally transform" America from its roots in individual liberty and limited government power to one more nearly like that top-down power oppression America's founding generations had fled from in Europe. In other words, Old World ideas of elites in power, with a powerless citizenry, was the Progressive goal--until November 2016.

Trump supporters must educate themselves on the ideas of liberty expressed in their 1776 Declaration of Independence from those who would rule them, instead of act as their leaders for the cause of liberty!

From time to time here, the question arises as to whether this Constitution structured a "democracy" or a "republic." Freepers generally understand the difference, but on this Constitution Day, we might explore that question again--especially for the benefit of our youth.

What if we had an answer on the "democracy/republic" question from an original source who actually lived through the Revolutionary Period? What if that source also provided the Framers' rationale for the underlying principle and the reason for Benjamin Franklin's purported response to the question?

John Adams' son, John Quincy, was 9 when the Declaration of Independence was written, 20 when the Constitution was framed, and from his teen years, served in various capacities in both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government, including as President. His words on this subject should be instructive on the subject at hand.

In 1839, JQA was invited by the New York Historical Society to deliver the "Jubilee" Address honoring the 50th Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington. He delivered that lengthy discourse which should be read by all who love liberty, for it traced the history of the development of the ideas underlying and the actions leading to the establishment of the Constitution which structured the United States government. His 50th-year summation seems to be a better source for understanding the kind of government the Founders formed than those of recent historians and politicians. He addresses the ideas of "democracy" and "republic" throughout, but here are some of his concluding remarks:

"Every change of a President of the United States, has exhibited some variety of policy from that of his predecessor. In more than one case, the change has extended to political and even to moral principle; but the policy of the country has been fashioned far more by the influences of public opinion, and the prevailing humors in the two Houses of Congress, than by the judgment, the will, or the principles of the President of the United States. The President himself is no more than a representative of public opinion at the time of his election; and as public opinion is subject to great and frequent fluctuations, he must accommodate his policy to them; or the people will speedily give him a successor; or either House of Congress will effectually control his power. It is thus, and in no other sense that the Constitution of the United States is democratic - for the government of our country, instead of a Democracy the most simple, is the most complicated government on the face of the globe. From the immense extent of our territory, the difference of manners, habits, opinions, and above all, the clashing interests of the North, South, East, and West, public opinion formed by the combination of numerous aggregates, becomes itself a problem of compound arithmetic, which nothing but the result of the popular elections can solve.

"It has been my purpose, Fellow-Citizens, in this discourse to show:-
"1. That this Union was formed by a spontaneous movement of the people of thirteen English Colonies; all subjects of the King of Great Britain - bound to him in allegiance, and to the British empire as their country. That the first object of this Union, was united resistance against oppression, and to obtain from the government of their country redress of their wrongs.
"2. That failing in this object, their petitions having been spurned, and the oppressions of which they complained, aggravated beyond endurance, their Delegates in Congress, in their name and by their authority, issued the Declaration of Independence - proclaiming them to the world as one people, absolving them from their ties and oaths of allegiance to their king and country - renouncing that country; declared the UNITED Colonies, Independent States, and announcing that this ONE PEOPLE of thirteen united independent states, by that act, assumed among the powers of the earth, that separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them.
"3. That in justification of themselves for this act of transcendent power, they proclaimed the principles upon which they held all lawful government upon earth to be founded - which principles were, the natural, unalienable, imprescriptible rights of man, specifying among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that the institution of government is to secure to men in society the possession of those rights: that the institution, dissolution, and reinstitution of government, belong exclusively to THE PEOPLE under a moral responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe; and that all the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.
"4. That under this proclamation of principles, the dissolution of allegiance to the British king, and the compatriot connection with the people of the British empire, were accomplished; and the one people of the United States of America, became one separate sovereign independent power, assuming an equal station among the nations of the earth.
"5. That this one people did not immediately institute a government for themselves. But instead of it, their delegates in Congress, by authority from their separate state legislatures, without voice or consultation of the people, instituted a mere confederacy.
"6. That this confederacy totally departed from the principles of the Declaration of independence, and substituted instead of the constituent power of the people, an assumed sovereignty of each separate state, as the source of all its authority.
"7. That as a primitive source of power, this separate state sovereignty,was not only a departure from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but directly contrary to, and utterly incompatible with them.
"8. That the tree was made known by its fruits. That after five years wasted in its preparation, the confederation dragged out a miserable existence of eight years more, and expired like a candle in the socket, having brought the union itself to the verge of dissolution.
"9. That the Constitution of the United States was a return to the principles of the Declaration of independence, and the exclusive constituent power of the people. That it was the work of the ONE PEOPLE of the United States; and that those United States, though doubled in numbers, still constitute as a nation, but ONE PEOPLE.
"10. That this Constitution, making due allowance for the imperfections and errors incident to all human affairs, has under all the vicissitudes and changes of war and peace, been administered upon those same principles, during a career of fifty years.
"11. That its fruits have been, still making allowance for human imperfection, a more perfect union, established justice, domestic tranquility, provision for the common defence, promotion of the general welfare, and the enjoyment of the blessings of liberty by the constituent people, and their posterity to the present day.
"And now the future is all before us, and Providence our guide."

In an earlier paragraph, he had stated:

"But this institution was republican, and even democratic. And here not to be misunderstood, I mean by democratic, a government, the administration of which must always be rendered comfortable to that predominating public opinion . . . and by republican I mean a government reposing, not upon the virtues or the powers of any one man - not upon that honor, which Montesquieu lays down as the fundamental principle of monarchy - far less upon that fear which he pronounces the basis of despotism; but upon that virtue which he, a noble of aristocratic peerage, and the subject of an absolute monarch, boldly proclaims as a fundamental principle of republican government. The Constitution of the United States was republican and democratic - but the experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived; and it was obvious that if virtue - the virtue of the people, was the foundation of republican government, the stability and duration of the government must depend upon the stability and duration of the virtue by which it is sustained."

"It’s a well known thing called ‘The Peter Principle.”"

Also a very good book - wasn't intended to be funny, but it turns our it's a hilarious read.
I forget if he covers the phenomenon of "screw up, move up", but that certainly applies....

If they had just left Trump alone and not try to frame him with collusion then there never would have been an investigation and they would all still be safe from exposure but they went one step too far.

"I was employed by a company that was a sub to NASA for many years. The levels of incompetence in the higher echelons was mind boggling. Most had been moved to positions that could cause little damage. Others, very dangerous."

I too am in the govt. Here is what I have noticed. The old guys, 60 and older, are old time cowboys who always try to do the right thing, but their processes are pretty sloppy. Then there are the 40-50 years old people. They are bureaucratic, and typically have an agenda, but are relatively subtle about it. Then there are the younger people, they are typically checklist people who are scared of their shadows.

The only exception are the retired military people (2d careers). They are all over the board- from really good to incompetent.

It was a conspiracy and it was a gross violation of laws against spying upon US Citizens and corrupting the judicial process. People really should go to jail for a long long time over what the FBI/NSA/CIA/FBI/DOJ did under Obama to spy on the Trump campaign.

Tell us more, Bruce. All of this fascinates us all.