The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Yeah, right, sure.......
www.reuters.com
Trump says he will consider testifying in impeachment hearing
U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday said he might be willing to testify in the impeachment inquiry "even though I did nothing wrong," although House Democrats leading the investigation have not publicly called him as a witness.
In writing probably.Yeah, right, sure.......
Trump says he will consider testifying in impeachment hearing
U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday said he might be willing to testify in the impeachment inquiry "even though I did nothing wrong," although House Democrats leading the investigation have not publicly called him as a witness.
She can write her ticket now. She's considered a heroine.
I think Trump should agree to testify before the House, on one condition - - that the whistleblower be seated right next to him and he subject to anu and all questions put forth by Republicans.
He will do it on Twitter......
If you look up swamp dweller in a dictionary you will find a definition similar to this; a person or creature that resides in a swamp. If you are using an illustrated dictionary you may even see a picture of Gentle Ben. Look up swamp and you may find synonyms such as marsh, wetland, moor etc. I believe President Trump coined the phrase "The Swamp", at least in reference to Washington D.C. He also called D.C. a cesspool and a shíthole. Although the latter may have been directed at Somalia.
Why do find Swamp Dweller to be a derisive term to use? Is it because you know exactly who the Swamp Dwellers are as per President Trump's broad definition and you're just trying to be cute?
Did you feel threatened when I introduced a bear into my reply? Did you gasp when you came upon the word "shíthole". Did you feel uncomfortable and your manhood possibly in question with my use of the word "cute"?
If the Schiff Show Shampeachment Theater wasn't entertaining enough, we get a surprise cameo appearance from Eric "I am Fartacus" Swalwell with his take on breaking news.
"That sounded so big he might have to pay child support."
"That sounded so big he might have to pay child support."
If the Schiff Show Shampeachment Theater wasn't entertaining enough, we get a surprise cameo appearance from Eric "I am Fartacus" Swalwell with his take on breaking news.
"That sounded so big he might have to pay child support."
That's pretty funny. Actually had me rolling.
But really, unless his ass was mic'd the scrapping "mug" excuse makes the most sense.
As far as some talking about the pause takeoff moment before the sound, well that's just him taking a breath. He did the exact same thing about 10 seconds before with no sound resulting. Must have been building pressure
Regardless, fart sounds, whether real or fake...are still pretty dang funny
Last edited:
[B]Donald J. Trump[/B]Verified account @[B]realDonaldTrump[/B]
FollowFollow @realDonaldTrump
I would love to send Ambassador Sondland, a really good man and great American, to testify, but unfortunately he would be testifying before a totally compromised kangaroo court, where Republican’s rights have been taken away, and true facts are not allowed out for the public....
6:23 AM - 8 Oct 2019
20 Nov 2019
Trump on the South Lawn speaking of Sondland
"I don’t know him very well. I have not spoken to him much."
"This is not a man I know well. He seems like a nice guy, though."
FollowFollow @realDonaldTrump
I would love to send Ambassador Sondland, a really good man and great American, to testify, but unfortunately he would be testifying before a totally compromised kangaroo court, where Republican’s rights have been taken away, and true facts are not allowed out for the public....
6:23 AM - 8 Oct 2019
20 Nov 2019
Trump on the South Lawn speaking of Sondland
"I don’t know him very well. I have not spoken to him much."
"This is not a man I know well. He seems like a nice guy, though."
When I was an infantry officer in the U.S. Army, my fellow officers and I were trained, very clearly, in courses conducted specifically for that purpose, that if a superior officer gave us an illegal order, it was our duty to not obey that order. A clear example would be an illegal order issued by a superior officer to kill enemy prisoners or torture civilians.
Trump once said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters." If (hypothetically) Trump ordered a soldier to shoot an innocent person on Fifth Avenue, and the soldier refused, would that make the soldier a swamp dweller?
Here's the Oath of Enlistment soldiers swear to:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
If Trump ordered the Attorney General to lock up Hillary Clinton and the AG refused saying that doing so would be an illegal act, would that make the AG a swamp dweller?
Last edited:
California recently passed a law that requires all presidential candidates to release their tax returns as a condition of getting on that state's primary ballot. That law was challenged in court and a federal judge ruled it is unconstitutional. The state says it will appeal that ruling. (Story Here)
As with most court cases, there are a number of aspects to consider, including prior case law related to this question. Time will tell how this plays out as the case proceeds through the higher courts.
As a political independent who believes ballot access should be equally, fairly and easily available to any person of any party or no party affiliation, I think the California law is wrong-headed. In 1998, former professional wrestler Jesse Ventura filed papers to run for governor of Minnesota as a third-party candiate. When people asked him what qualified him to be the governor of Minnesota, he cited the requirements spelled out in the state constitution. He brought smiles to many faces when he said, "I'm over 25 and I live in Minnesota."
There are people out there who believe candidates for public office should be required to undergo physical exams and/or psychological exams to run for office. Others have suggested candidates be treated like job applicants and be made to meet any number of education, business experience or other qualifications before they can file to run for office. I've heard others suggest that only landowners be allowed to run for office.
Every time I've heard someone make such an argument, his or her idea was to exclude or hinder a particular person or a certain class of people from running for public office. The constitution prohibits such restrictions and I am hopeful the higher courts will so rule.
As with most court cases, there are a number of aspects to consider, including prior case law related to this question. Time will tell how this plays out as the case proceeds through the higher courts.
As a political independent who believes ballot access should be equally, fairly and easily available to any person of any party or no party affiliation, I think the California law is wrong-headed. In 1998, former professional wrestler Jesse Ventura filed papers to run for governor of Minnesota as a third-party candiate. When people asked him what qualified him to be the governor of Minnesota, he cited the requirements spelled out in the state constitution. He brought smiles to many faces when he said, "I'm over 25 and I live in Minnesota."
There are people out there who believe candidates for public office should be required to undergo physical exams and/or psychological exams to run for office. Others have suggested candidates be treated like job applicants and be made to meet any number of education, business experience or other qualifications before they can file to run for office. I've heard others suggest that only landowners be allowed to run for office.
Every time I've heard someone make such an argument, his or her idea was to exclude or hinder a particular person or a certain class of people from running for public office. The constitution prohibits such restrictions and I am hopeful the higher courts will so rule.
Last edited:
Of course not. My definition of Swamp Dweller didn't address the concept of an illegal order as what makes one a Swamp Dweller. You do know what a straw man fallacy is, I presume. Using the concept of an illegal order, to attack my original definition Swamp Dweller, is a straw man argument. But since you want to introduce the new variable of illegal orders, in order for the order to be an illegal order, it actually has to be illegal, and not merely something you, as a Swamp Dweller, disagrees with.
To date, there has been no allegations that Swamp Dwellers have refused to carry out any illegal orders from President Trump. There have been plenty of allegations that Swamp Dwellers have refused to carry out policies that they simply disagree with, however.
BTW, California's Supreme Court, on Thursday, November 21, unanimously struck down The Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act as being in violation of the California Constitution, regardless of the outcome of the appeal in the federal courts. So even if the federal courts rule that the California doesn't violate federal law (unlikely, based on precedent of ruling against other attempts to introduce requirements for President outside of those enumerated in the Constitution), the law is invalid in California and will no go into effect.
I have not been following the impeachment proceedings in detail. I may be incorrect but gather that the Ukraine military assistance was held when it was ordered held and released when it was ordered it released. I know of no order that was violated in that regard. Is that incorrect? Or are you referring to other cases where "Swamp Dwellers have refused to carry out policies that they simply disagree with..."? If so, can you provide an example?
Last edited:
Correct. The holding and releasing of the military aid isn't something that a career Swamp Dwellers would have anything to do with. It's not like Trump could say, "Hold up the aid," and then an ambassador or an advisor, who thinks they know better, could defy him and release it anyway.
It's that. Yes. One example is when certain (liberal anti Trumpers we found out) members of the EPA refused a directive from Trump to cease publishing alarming pseudoscience and conjecture as established fact. They thought they knew better, they were experts, after all.
Another example is when Swamp Dwellers slow-walk the president's orders, simply because they disagreed with them. Plenty of reports of those kinds of things that have gone on.
The ridiculous tweets critical of the president by the federal accounts like the National Park Service is another example of the Deep State thinking it can rebel and do what it wants.
Eric Snowden exposed the breathtaking overreach of surveillance of the NSA, simply because they thought they could do whatever they wanted to, accountable to no one. (no, this stuff isn't new or unique to Trump)
Remember when the phone conversations between Trump and the President of Australia, and then of Mexico, got released by Swamp Dwellers? That was in direct violation of not only the legal statutes, but of the rules and orders of the President.
But the most glaring example of defying the President is people in Intelligence and Justice leaking classified information simply because they disagreed with Trump.
Several witnesses in the impeachment inquiry flat out stated that they were experts in their fields and know best how to handle things. At least a couple of them went on and on about how insulting (nay, dangerous to our nation's security!) when they were cut out of the loop in favor of back channel and shadow diplomacy. They simply didn't agree with how Trump is conducting his foreign policy. But the problem is, the President gets to conduct foreign policy any way he wants, including shadow diplomacy, and even using Rudy Giuliani if he wants.
John Brennan famously said in July of 2017, just a few months after Trump was inaugurated, that executive branch officials have an “obligation to refuse to carry out” outrageous or anti-democratic orders from President Donald Trump. That's the mindset the Swamp Dwellers have. But the thing is, outrageous or anti democratic isn't a case of legal or illegal, it's a judgement call of the part of the Swamp Dweller, something that they not only do not have an obligation to do, but they don't have the authority to do it, either.
The Swamp Dwellers in the government are no different than what you find in any large organization or company. A certain segment will think the CEO is crazy, out of touch, or wrong, they they know what's best for the company and they will do whatever they can to fight it.
