It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump fires Secret Service director

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: schuyler


My imagination? Did I imagine him saying he could shoot somebody and his base would defend him?

Yes, apparently you did.

It was someone in the MSM that said that. Trump was referencing what they said, to show how ridiculous they are.

Happy now?




posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Well, let's check that out.

True that he said ''they said''. That part was clear. He was talking about how popular he is with his voters, which by the way does not say much about how he sees his supporters other than that they are blind sheep. But beyond that, yes he was saying he got this from the media, what the media was saying. He was talking about the polls, how the polls show how dedicated his supporters are. I get that.

However, has anyone anywhere found the media outlet that he was referencing? Where anyone in the media made that statement that he was supposedly quoting? He did say after all'' they say''... Nope, that is unless you can find it and bring it to the table.

Another point then is how he so often claims, when wanting to toss something out into the air, he says ''They say''. Or they call her, as in when he wants to call people names, he just preferences it with ''they say.'' He does this a lot to side step responsibility for what he is saying by attempting to give the impression that he is only passing along the crap he passes along.

So then it is my position that what he was doing was grandstanding, extolling his own grandiosity. He himself, unless someone can prove otherwise to me, made up that claim that ''they say''.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

If you ask me, which I guess you did, Trump has always been after one thing since being elected. He is after a Trumpian coup. He wants to turn the government into his own little fiefdom and run the country like a king. Filling his cabinet with flunkies and '' yes men'' until all opposing voices are silenced.


No more than what any president would do or has done. Every president so far has selected cabinet members, department heads, judges, etc. based on their own philosophy of government. If someone who is president whom you like, that's okay. If Trump does it, orange man bad.


Most Presidents actually go through the confirmation process. They don't appoint acting heads for 480 days and then rotate them around. This is a practice that goes against the spirit of the laws for Senate confirmation, it is not intended that someone simply refuses to nominate a person and avoids congressional oversight.

Considering that the Senate is currently controlled by Republicans, many of which are sycophants... what does Trump seriously have to fear about trying to confirm the people he wants?

The answer of course, is that the Senate doesn't want to go on record as confirming people like Gorka and Miller, and probably wouldn't do so. Thus, Trump knows that he can't actually function with oversight and is therefore rejecting it. This goes completely against the concept of checks and balances.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Trump fires Secret Service director

Because of a chinese spy infiltrator at Mar Lago.

Don't read anything more than that in to it.

It's a breach that should have never happened.



Too bad the Secret Service defers to the judgement of the person they're protecting. One of their philosophies is to be as non intrusive as possible, so that those they protect won't circumvent their protection. One thing this means, is that in situations like this, they will defer to the security processes Trump wants in place at Mar-A-Lago. As such, if they ok someone to come in, the Secret Service is not allowed to stop them. They can only remove uninvited guests.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
The entire cabinet serves at the President's pleasure. They are there to carry out his wishes by executing his policies to the best of their ability. Within the Executive Branch, the President is already a king.


The President can only hire and fire people in positions which are nominated, and intended to be confirmed. Positions below those, such as deputy directors, and their reports are supposed to be removed from a Presidents direct influence.

The President sets the direction, the cabinet sets policy to roughly follow that direction.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Evidently CNN covered this as well, for those of you that choose them as your news source. I wonder if they will include this tidbit.


I mean, if your #1 objective is to the stability of the country, then that is quite literally the only statement that you can make.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
Trump hires professionals - then fires them, because their opinions don't match his reality (in his own head). I bet his staff is miserable, every single day.


You deal with Trump the way you deal with a dictator. You agree with everything they say, shape their news intake to match what they want to hear, and then do whatever the hell needs to be done without an official OK on the matter.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Keep living the dream... but while you're at it check out your Government and Corporate debt levels when the US crashes it crashes and burns... like I said 1929 to 1939. An Egg Is An Egg, doesn't matter how much black gold you produce fact is the US economy is in so much debt those barrels you mentioned??? don't even cover it.

Please ignore me... myself I'm prepared, No Loans, No Debt not beholden to American firms of any nature so I won't actually lose anything, hell I'm looking forward to getting the NHS back when all those US firms go belly up after loading up the debt to buy the contracts over here. Poetic, Ironic you decide
both maybe.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: UKTruth
The entire cabinet serves at the President's pleasure. They are there to carry out his wishes by executing his policies to the best of their ability. Within the Executive Branch, the President is already a king.


The President can only hire and fire people in positions which are nominated, and intended to be confirmed. Positions below those, such as deputy directors, and their reports are supposed to be removed from a Presidents direct influence.

The President sets the direction, the cabinet sets policy to roughly follow that direction.


The President IS the Executive branch.
Everyone else is there to serve at his pleasure.
Yes, there are layers of management - I would expect that if the President wants someone removed (or hired) he will direct such through his reporting lines.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: UKTruth


Turning smarmy now are we? Here in the US, any equating of the president to a king should be anathema to a free citizen, but you however seem to relish that notion.


It's just the way it is. I neither rail against it or relish in it. I do, however think that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are amongst the greatest documents ever written. Within the executive branch the President is very much like a king.
Article 2 of the Constitution vests "the executive power" of the United States in the President. No one else.

The controls on the President - and thus the the limits put on his 'kingship' to within the executive branch only - are from the other two branches of govt. Within the executive branch the President can make no laws - that is the purview of the Legislative branch. He must stick to enforcing laws and if he breaks laws the Judicial Branch is there to stop the President.

That's why it is hilarious to suggest that the President can carry out a coup of his executive branch. He has unitary power of the executive branch according to the Constitution. Trying to take that away from him would be a coup. If the President fires a Congressman, Senator or Judge, then your claims that he is attempting a coup would hold water. Until then, you are just plain wrong.

It seems that when a Democrat is President, it's Republicans who question the constitutional power of the President and when a Republican is in power, it's Democrats who question the constitutional power of the President. Only a few seem to understand that the Constituion remains the same regardless of who is in power and will continue unchanged in regard to Presidential power until it is formally amended.
edit on 11/4/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Your reply is true. Both sides rail against the other side allowing to much Executive Privilege while the other is in office.
To me, allowing to much power into the hands of one person is the lazy way to run a Republic. But whatcha gonna do?



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I love the way you sign your posts Dave.



I have noticed a consistent trend with liberals/progressives/sjws, they accuse everybody else for what they are in fact doing and blame everyone else for the problems they create.


I have noticed this about sjws as well. But I have noticed it about Trump suporters on this site as well. Have you?

I always think of this in terms of the biblical thing of the mote in the other's eye is easy to see but the log in ones own is not kind of thing.

But that trend of liberals and progressives. When have we really had a liberal or progressive president. None to my knowledge. Some will call Slick Willy a liberal and I call him at best a neo-liberal who fooled a liberal base into believing that he was their guy. Obama as well. Had he been a progressive he would have not accepted the backing of Wall Street and the banking industry or bailed out those banks and stuff. Other than that we have had little in the way or liberal let alone ''progressive'' presidents




I believe the last one was Trump's friend's dad (RIP.) They offed him for it and until now no has had the balls "to go against the grain." luckily they have not been successful in their latest attempts.



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
a reply to: DAVID64

So you were cool with it when Obama "did it" and you're cool with trump doing it. If Obama jumped off a cliff....


I would have a beer



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: jidnum


Every president has chosen who THEY want to work for them. Nothing new here.


Well,,,,,,,,,sure..

However, if you recall, one of Trump's campaign promises was to drain the swamp. This was to be done by hiring the ''the best people'', His claim was that he knew the best people to hire. This one one of his biggest promises.

Yet then he began to hire people and many of them proved to be right out of the swamp. As well he dismisses appointees left and right because it seems he is still searching for the ''best people''

It has been reported by many who have worked under him that he requires an oath of loyalty, not to the country but to him personally. It also appears that anyone who disagrees with him is let go or let go with acrimony. As we look at his cabinet almost a quarter of the cabinet positions are run by ''acting'' secretaries, many of which have no experience of work in the fields of which they are secretaries over.

So sure, all presidents hire people who they think and feel that will not only work in the best interests of the presidential agenda, but as well that they believe that the president can work with and trust their expertise when it does not mesh with the potus understanding of things. This president has shown the opposite. When anyone with expertise voices contradictory information from what the potus believes they are ridiculed and or fired.

You may of course take this all with a grain of salt, that is paying it no mind. There are however others of us who take these tell tale signs seriously and who propose that this president is not except in superficial ways, like all presidents before him and indeed is in need of closer scrutiny.


What a long diatribe to condemn the President for firing the person in charge of his security after it has been breached. How many attempts have been made so far to off him? He has to take something like a spy getting into his BOO (base of operation) seriously yes fired serious. Would you rather he pat them on the back and say you'll get them next time??? When his life and ours are at stake? Is your TDS so severe that you would condemn the President for not taking this seriously??



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Partisanship aside for the moment, the Secret Service has been awash in scandal for more than a decade now.

During the Obama Term 1, the president made a trip through Latin America and was unprotected. Key members of the secret service had been to a brothel; I cannot remember if it was underage girls, or if some of them wound up in a local jail, but it was quite the scandal.

I think in Obama Term 2 there was an unscheduled late-night drive by the president, and the presidential security detail had to be woken up, and were too intoxicated to drive...

heck even back in Clinton's second term, there were some agents terminated because the Hillary Clinton's code name was apparently "the first bitch." Totally unprofessional, and beneath the standards of the agents who guard the president and overhear his personal communications.

There have been long term problems with the secret service; their first female director was brought in by trump I think to cut out the unprofessional and sexist misbehavior, and I think she was fired fairly quickly in her turn.

If the president thought that an SS agent was passing information to his opponents, then the agent should be removed instantly. It's the whole "at the pleasure of the president" thing.

We have no information with which to second-guess. We're still first-guessing.







 
18
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join