The CIA and Russian Hacking

It's an oath of office. The duration would be the time in office. It's irrelevant after that as you have highlighted here with your McVeigh example.
See? Once again alt-Left and alt-Right America-haters can join hands in agreement that an oath to God means nothing once a person leaves their position.

According to the U.S. Constitution, the President-Elect should take the oath before saying, "So help me, God."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
This is the same CIA who is far better with cyber tracking than the two posters pretending above.

The Russian hacking is and will continue to rip a huge hole in the Trump presidency.
Really aggravates you huh bub? Too funny
 
As for Trump, that remains to be seen. Yes, past evidence says he's a selfish egotist. However, he's never taken an oath before. There's no direct money to be made as POTUS. If he fucks it up, his name will be on the "10 Worst Presidents List" for decades. I strongly doubt he will let that happen if he can prevent it.

I know Trump is doing all he can to prevent the release of information that may indicate or confirm that he will have violated his oath of office.

it's up to the leadership to decide what to do with that information. OTOH, when the shit hits the fan, it's all too easy for an elected politician to blame the professionals.

One example is Hillary Clinton blaming her vote on "Bush lied" when, in fact, the Senate and House Intelligence Committees had the very same information given to Bush. All the fucking politicians used the CIA and FBI to blame for everything from 9/11 to Syria. Sure, they'll suck up the credit when there is some, but they'll pass the blame when things don't pan out as planned.

Politicians don't have a good track record when it comes to finding ways to pass the buck. As much as part of that is on them, a good part of it is on the electorate. Voters seem more than ready to
  1. not look closely into matter
    1. look at how many people in the 2016 election still believed Obama wasn't born in the U.S.
    2. look at how many people have no strong understanding of concept appearances of impropriety
    3. look at how many people criticized HRC because there is tons of information about what she's done over the years, but who didn't question Trump or complain about the lack of detailed information about what he's done over the years
    4. look at how many people ignored the fact that Trump was the only candidate who's paid fines for having violated the tax code
  2. hold against luminaries their mistakes and forget (or not go look for) and minimize their successes, and they do that based mainly on a gut feeling, namely who they think they like even though they don't know those people personally, and with no regard for the fact that the bar needed to justify their claims has not been met, particularly in the case of convictable offenses and private matters that really aren't our business, for example:
    1. Bill Cosby's alleged rape case (trial pending)
    2. Bill Clinton's alleged rape
    3. Tiger Woods' infidelity
    4. Bill Clinton's infidelity
Until voters show they are "better than that," their elected leaders will continue as they have.
 
It's an oath of office. The duration would be the time in office. It's irrelevant after that as you have highlighted here with your McVeigh example.
See? Once again alt-Left and alt-Right America-haters can join hands in agreement that an oath to God means nothing once a person leaves their position.
The oath says, "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I faithfully execute the Office of the President to the United States, and will to the best of my ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk
 
The oath says, "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I faithfully execute the Office of the President to the United States, and will to the best of my ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Correct again, but the previous conversation involved all of those former military members and federal officers who took an oath like the one below and the duration of that oath, both legally and morally.

“I, ———-, 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
 
Correct again, and officers want to provide the common defense and promote the welfare.

Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk
 
The oath says, "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I faithfully execute the Office of the President to the United States, and will to the best of my ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Correct again, but the previous conversation involved all of those former military members and federal officers who took an oath like the one below and the duration of that oath, both legally and morally.

“I, ———-, 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Correct again

Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk
 
I already did. I guess you didn't read it.
Incorrect. You posted a speculative article about what Trump might do, could possibly do. If you read your own article, you'd know there are several issues with such an idea such as the FOIA.

That aside, it's a long way for Trump to seek protecting his privacy on one hand and him violating the law on the other as you claimed to "know": "Trump is doing all he can to prevent the release of information that may indicate or confirm that he will have violated his oath of office"
 

Forum List

Back
Top