Steve Clemmons tweets Secret Service Agents fired and escorted out

twitter.com...

Steve Clemmons claims on twitter that 2 or more Secret Service agents have been fired and escorted from the premises. He says his sources are the fired agents. Speculation is rampant, everything from they are the 'leaks' to slow walking the investigation into the agent that said she wouldn't take a bullet for Trump. Story is still developing.

Reading through his tweets, he says 'fired' and then changes to 'forced to resign'.

a reply to: Khaleesi

it`s always aweful when an SS agent is "forced to resign" merely because they won`t live up to the oath they took.
what is the world coming to when people expect you to live up to your oath.
an oath isn`t a pledge of honor or anything it`s just something you do while waiting in line to take a piss at a Wal-Mart bathroom

a reply to: Khaleesi

Interesting.
I think it's time that Trump is allowed to hire his own security detail.
The Gateway Pundit has a story, it's not being reported anywhere else that I can see.
www.thegatewaypundit.com...

I can't find this anywhere but his twitter page. No one else is reporting this. Either he has a big scoop or some 'fake news' is going on. He has multiple tweets about it though.

I think government defections and sabotage would have been far worse if Hillary had won. The people of highest character and integrity would have left and/or would now be thinking up ways to get her out of the Oval Office.

originally posted by: Khaleesi
I can't find this anywhere but his twitter page. No one else is reporting this. Either he has a big scoop or some 'fake news' is going on. He has multiple tweets about it though.

Not seeing it elsewhere and not reported by RoguePOTUSStaff twitter. Might see more in the morning.

a reply to: Byrd

Personally, I don't think there ever was a leak close to the POTUS. I've seen lots of fake news stories from unnamed sources, but nothing solid at all. Like the phone calls to Mexico and Australia. Fake news with no way of checking any sources, it shouldn't have even been reported by any newsoutlets... but it was.

a reply to: Tardacus

That is why one should never swear an oath to an organisation, only to an individual within it.

Swearing to protect the President of the United States of America is a stupid thing to do. There is always a chance that a person who, for the good of the people and future of the country, ought to be battered to death with a ball peen hammer, might get the Oval Office. Its a much better idea to swear to protect the individual who occupies it, by name, every time a new guy shows up, and anyone who does not wish to swear the oath to protect that individual, gets reassigned to a different set of duties.

Seems to be a somewhat more sensible approach.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Uhm yeah you got it wrong...

The secret service does not take an oat to protect the person. They take an oath to protect the office of the President, Vice President, their immediate families and anyone else designated by law, whomever that may be.

The oath is not to Trump nor was it to Obama... The oath is to the office of the president. The institution is more important than the person.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I did not get it wrong, I KNOW that they protect the office, not the individual.

I am saying that it is fundamentally WRONG to swear an oath to protect an office, no matter who occupies it, because the office is NOT important. What is important is whether the individual occupying it is worth protecting. By swearing an oath to protect the office, not the person, anyone swearing that oath would be honour bound to continue to protect that office, even if it became the issue of tyranny.

Swearing an oath to protect the individual who occupies the office however, would leave agents free to either swear their fealty to the person, or NOT, if they believe that to do so would put them in conflict with the founding principles of the country.

a reply to: TrueBrit

and since we live in a nation of laws they would be required to stop the person with the hammer trying to murder a person.

It is fundamentally wrong to advocate killing someone because you dont agree with them / like their agenda. We have procedures in place to remove people from office who are not fit to hold office. Thank god its not based on personal opinion.

and again, no, you have it wrong if you keep coming back to a personal loyalty oath.

The founding principles of this nation are the constitution and rule of law. Dismissing those based on someones personal opinion betrays those very principles.

If you are a SS agent and dont like the President then you request a transfer. At the next election you vote.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Tardacus

That is why one should never swear an oath to an organisation, only to an individual within it.

Swearing to protect the President of the United States of America is a stupid thing to do. There is always a chance that a person who, for the good of the people and future of the country, ought to be battered to death with a ball peen hammer, might get the Oval Office. Its a much better idea to swear to protect the individual who occupies it, by name, every time a new guy shows up, and anyone who does not wish to swear the oath to protect that individual, gets reassigned to a different set of duties.

Seems to be a somewhat more sensible approach.

Incredibly ignorant!

This isn't like quitting your office job because you don't like your boss! Would you condone a police officer not doing his job to protect you because he didn't like men with long hair or something equally as redundant?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh really?,my sister was a SS agent,also head administrator,her duty was to protect whomever they were ordered to protect which meant to be a shield,so yes that is their duty,funny how some libs become instant attys,and my brother in law worked for them as well,how he met my sister,do your job and you won't get fired

a reply to: Xcathdra

No he didn't get it wrong

He's stating his opinion that swearing and oath that might mean you have to give up your life for a tyrant is not a favorable situation

You may not agree w him , but he clearly understands what the oath means.

I agree it could be a compromising situation for some

I'm not sure if this is true, but it might be.
I'm sure we all recall the reports in recent years of Social Security agents slacking off and otherwise doing stupid things.
Trump requires that people do a good job. He does not tolerate slackers.

a reply to: TrueBrit

There is always a chance that a person who, for the good of the people and future of the country, ought to be battered to death with a ball peen hammer, might get the Oval Office.

I know, right!?!
But, Hillary didn't win, so you can put the hammer away.


ETA - Killing someone you disagree with politically? Your rabid Liberal colors are showing.

a reply to: Byrd

That rogue potusStaff is also on its way out, thats for sure.

Trump is not the typical polite, cautious, rehearsed president but he is the president because he promised a few important things no one else promised, maybe Bernie what the one who came closer. To deliver those promises he will have to walk a very troubled road in the first months, this is what he´s doing.

I just hope he realizes that even though the globalisation wasn´t built in a day, the first steps against it must be taken fearlessly and without misery because that´s the enemy we´re up to. Then, the actual job of reversing what´s been done in the last decades and building a viable alternative to the corporate exploitation will take at least as long as it took to get us here.

Along the way the american regime may have to change and will change but not from a democracy as many think, from a corporatocracy that it is what it is now.

Trump may not finish this job, that´s why he speaks of a movement. He needs the support of a movement for the first months, first year or two, and we all need to get into ourselves the basic notion that the globalisation of the corporations is agains us and its the most dangerous threat we have ever faced.

Many of you don´t know it but there was a time when a corporation ruled over nations, it was the Dutch East India Company that enslaved millions for profit. This happened 500 years ago but the method was the same they´re using now on us.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: carewemust

Haha ha Ha ha Ha ha Ha ha Ha . Riiiiiight.

Kind of kellyanne like. Gotta love it.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: TrueBrit

There is always a chance that a person who, for the good of the people and future of the country, ought to be battered to death with a ball peen hammer, might get the Oval Office.

I know, right!?!
But, Hillary didn't win, so you can put the hammer away.


ETA - Killing someone you disagree with politically? Your rabid Liberal colors are showing.

He didn't specify politically to be fair....nor did he name names or the reason.....
I agree that there are some people who just need an asswhooping

Also there are many horrible, predatory people out there , i.e. Terrorist, rapists , pedopholes etc

My suspicion is you knew exactly what he meant, your rabid right wing colors are showing? See how that works?

I think we all understood his point , there's no need to crucify him just because you're a trump supporter