C-SPAN has the video After Words with Jerome Corsi.
Journalist Jerome Corsi argued that there is an effort to thwart the presidency of Donald J. Trump. He is interviewed by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson.
From my prior readings from and about Jerome Corsi, and what I know about infowars.com, I consider him to be a prototypical right-wing nut. If it had not been for the recommendation of another progressive Facebook acquaintance, I never would have listened to this interview.
As I listened to the interview, I kept teetering back and forth between the judgment of right-wing nut and agreeing with some of what he said.
It is interesting to hear his thoughts on the Deep State from a conservative’s point of view. The progressive/left has similar complaints about the deep state, but feel it is after them. I have reconciled these similar views coming from opposite sides as recognizing that the deep state does not necessarily favor either conservatives or progressives, The deep state holdovers just care about preserving the welfare of some corporate oligarchs who only care about enriching themselves.
On my own, I have been recognizing for some time that there is a Deep State vendetta against Trump. Many of my progressive friends accuse me of being a supporter of Trump just because I can recognize what is being done to him and the complicity of the corporate press. I keep saying that just because you are pretty sure that Trump lies a lot, don’t presume that all the forces that are fighting him are telling you the truth.
My latest fight is against the Democrats like Rep. Adam Schiff, who says he sees no evidence that the government under Obama put a spy in the Trump campaign. When I present my evidenc by giving people the link to a previous blog post, The FBI Informant Who Monitored the Trump Campaign, Stefan Halper, Oversaw a CIA Spying Operation in the 1980 Presidential Election, they resort to calling me names. The Republicans who want to refute what I say about the spy in the Trump campaign would like to engage me in a discussion of how an informant is different from a spy. To believe this argument is useful requires you to believe that the FBI claim for inserting the “informant” is completely honest without the possibility of the ulterior motives that they deny.
If I have both my friends and enemies taking me to task, maybe I am actually onto something.