By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former Customs and Border Patrol “commander at large” Greg Bovino refused to relinquish official government social media accounts after his retirement, claiming the followers were his personal following. These accounts, belonging to the Border Patrol’s El Centro, California, regional office, were used by Bovino to promote his role in anti-immigration raids. Despite resistance and claims of ownership over the amassed followers, the accounts have now been shut down by the federal government.
Read the original article here
It appears that in a rather dramatic turn of events, Greg Bovino’s social media accounts have reportedly been shut down by the Trump administration. This action, according to reports, followed his refusal to relinquish control of these platforms. This situation paints a rather stark picture of internal dynamics within the administration, suggesting a struggle for control over narrative and influence, even after leaving office. It’s certainly a scenario that raises eyebrows, particularly given the context of political transitions and the ongoing importance of online presence for public figures.
The core of the issue seems to be Bovino’s unwillingness to hand over his social media accounts. This refusal likely stemmed from a desire to maintain a personal platform or perhaps to continue communicating with his followers independently. However, for the administration to take such a drastic step as shutting down his accounts implies a significant disagreement or perceived threat. It’s as if the administration felt it necessary to sever his connection to the public sphere to prevent him from acting autonomously, particularly if his actions were seen as detrimental to their interests or future plans.
There’s a recurring sentiment that this move is indicative of a broader pattern of behavior associated with the Trump administration. Many observers view this as a characteristic “Trump tactic” – a way of dealing with individuals who are no longer deemed useful or who are seen as potentially problematic. The idea is that people are utilized for their purpose, and once that purpose is served or they become an inconvenience, they are, in essence, “made to disappear” from the public eye or from the administration’s inner circle.
This situation also highlights a perceived struggle for power and control, even among former allies. The fact that they are reportedly “fighting with each other” suggests that the end of the administration didn’t bring about a peaceful parting of ways for everyone involved. Instead, it seems to have exposed underlying tensions and a willingness to engage in internal conflict to assert dominance or maintain a semblance of control over the lingering narrative.
One of the more pointed criticisms suggests that this incident is a consequence of individuals believing they could operate with impunity, much like their former leader. The idea is that the leniency and perceived absence of consequences afforded to Donald Trump created an environment where others felt emboldened. However, when their own actions led to negative repercussions, they discovered that such protection didn’t extend to them, leading to their downfall.
The descriptions of Bovino himself are quite colorful, with some characterizing him as having “control issues” and being an “egotistical ass.” These personal attacks, while perhaps emotionally charged, reflect a strong negative perception of his character and motivations. The analogy of being an “angry elf” or a “Mini-Hitler” suggests a perceived pettiness and a descent from any position of influence or respect.
The comparison to working for the “Empire in the Star Wars universe” is a particularly striking one. This analogy frames the administration as a “dystopian institution” that attracts individuals with “malevolent ambition or fervent zealotry.” It suggests that those who rise within such an environment often do so out of a misguided belief that climbing to the top will ensure their security, only to find themselves vulnerable when failures occur and scapegoats are needed.
The prediction that others might follow Bovino into obscurity, with “Keggy” being mentioned as a potential next, speaks to a sense of ongoing instability and personnel churn within the broader orbit of the former administration. It implies that even those who remain might be on borrowed time, awaiting their own moment of being discarded or facing public scrutiny for perceived failures.
There’s a significant concern that this entire situation is a deliberate act of scapegoating. The implication is that Bovino was set up to take the fall for something, and his subsequent social media shutdown is part of an effort to silence him or prevent him from speaking out. The sentiment is that the administration, or those within it, knew what they were getting into with individuals like Bovino, and his current predicament is a predictable outcome.
The loss of relevance is another theme that emerges. For many, Bovino’s current situation means he’s no longer a figure of consequence. The question is raised: “Why anyone cares what he has to say on social media at this point is beyond me.” This sentiment suggests that his actions and platform have diminished significantly, rendering him a non-factor in the broader political landscape.
The comparison to a leopard and its spots, and the idea of not being able to change one’s nature, suggests that Bovino’s alleged behaviors and the administration’s responses are inherent characteristics that cannot be altered. This paints a picture of individuals who are inherently flawed and whose actions are predictable based on their past patterns.
A broader call to action emerges from some of the commentary, linking these events to a larger struggle for democracy. The idea is that such tactics are designed to keep people “dumb, hungry, tired angry, scared and/or distracted” to pave the way for “full autocracy.” This perspective urges readers to engage in political action, particularly in upcoming midterm elections, to “stop them” and prevent a slide towards authoritarianism.
The descriptions of Bovino as a “rage filled manlet” and a “pathetic loser” reflect a visceral and personal disdain. The anecdote about a former medical contractor’s negative experience with Bovino adds a layer of anecdotal evidence to the negative characterizations, suggesting that his unpleasantness was not isolated but rather a widely shared sentiment among those who had to work with him.
The idea that “Winners get bored with his stories” and that Trump surrounds himself with “losers” to feel better about his own accomplishments offers a psychological interpretation of Trump’s behavior and his perceived need for sycophancy. This paints a picture of an administration built on a foundation of insecurity and a desire for constant validation.
The critique extends to the corruption inherent in the situation, questioning the nature of “Christian Conservatism” and suggesting that it has devolved into “abject corruption.” This points to a disillusionment with the underlying principles that were supposedly espoused by some factions of the political right, suggesting that they have been abandoned in favor of self-serving and ethically dubious practices.
The observation that while some religious groups are recognizing this corruption, others, particularly “evangelicals,” are “lapping it up,” highlights a perceived disconnect and a willingness to overlook unethical behavior for ideological reasons. This suggests a deeper societal issue concerning the influence of certain religious groups on political discourse and their susceptibility to propaganda.