I disagree--it had to have been the democrats (with an OK by the commander-and-chief). They probably got his consent by scarring him into thinking his legacy would be ruined if anything escalated and backed it up with "chatter" the NSA picked up. When he couldn't get a single court over-ruling, he knew the jig was up--Trump is no guerrilla or revolutionary, and a mass of mad people wasn't going to accomplish anything [without violence--it would be a cringe, not a French Revolution in the end sorry to say].
but there is no way he would have brought the troops in on his own
he would look like a dick ruining the inauguration for its own sake--and that doesn't seem to be the goal.
but he also is the "instigator" since the troops were brought in to quwell pro-Trump folks--so this 20+K number would be self-sabotage to the highest degree.
All-in-all it really makes him look like shit--so, I really doubt he made the call (the man know self-promotion after all)--and everything about this looks like a smear and animalistic show of dominance and public shame. I think his enemies just wanted insult-to-injury (unless of course there was something far outside my radar).
so tired of clown world
His legacy? Do you think after being impeached twice, Trump was concerned about his legacy? This is laughable. The Commander-in-Chief (President Trump) has sole authority of the National Guard in Washington DC. Furthermore, under a National Emergency order, it is the Commander-in-Chief, who presides over the NG.
The National Guard in DC had to be approved by President Trump unless it was designated by EO to delegate this responsibility to a State Department. It was not the Dimwits and Nancy Pelosi that have any authority in this regard. Congress has authority to use the Washington DC police for security.
The National Guard in DC had to be approved by President Trump
I think I stated his approval twice and never said otherwise.
and
Do you think after being impeached twice, Trump was concerned about his legacy?
yes certainly.
you are throwing in the "impeached twice" as if that is a separate instance from what we are talking about with the troops--kike leagues. The second impeachment and troop deployment surrounded the same issue and are inseparable (if anything the troop deployment would be because of the impeachment--to quell a mass uprising).
That man cares about his legacy more than anything at this point. What else is he after?
____
ps. Just because he has sole authority, there are still politics at play: shutting down an inauguration is like crapping on some kids Christmas for no good reason. With all those slimy bastards and your own waning authority: the incoming president and his cronies would have quite a bit of influence in this situation as it is "his party" and is about to assume with vengeance all of your waning power.
>"That man cares about his legacy more than anything at this point. What else is he after?"
You don't know his motives nor do I. Speculating on something is to "Assume". Your legacy part just doesn't ring for me, especially phrasing it like it is a fact. I believe Trump was trying to do the right thing for America and to return us to Constitutional principles. Now, this is my belief and I won't ever pose something like this as fact. There is far more than you know or I. Speculation is like spitting in the wind.
Nope Yah missed it,ckear notes are available
(post is archived)