Well, it really is hard to explain; any explanation is largely speculative. For instance, I attend two primary possibilities: (1) It sounds and reads like a subject change; when the reporter tried to confirm that Donald Trump really did just offer to testify under oath, the president appears to have changed the subject. (2) It represents Donald Trump's incompetence. That is to say, either Trump pretends to botch the question, or else he really botches the question. I suggested in another thread↗ that we should pay attention to this rhetorical maneuver. When it comes time to haul Trump under oath, he will resist and make excuses. And when we point to the one hundred percent line, he will likely point to this weird string of words about not knowing Comey and pledging under oath. Thus, when the time comes that the president must pretend a certain manner of confusion, we might wonder if that confusion is significant of disqualifying incompetence. There is a bit siblings do to one another in rivalry. One will make an observation; the other will contest; the one will literally point to the evidence, and the other will pretend to not see it. The one will point at the bronze statue someone put a rainbow t-shirt on, perhaps at the eleven o'clock position, and the other will look straight up at the sky, then down at the ground, then ninety degrees left, then ninety degrees right, and never look where the one is pointing, and say, "Nope, I don't see it! What are you talking about! You're making that up, there's no statue with a rainbow t-shirt." This appears to be Donald Trump's version, though nobody is quite certain what good it does him. 'Tis also true that he can surprise me, but the way the press has jumped on the one-hundred percent line, it's not so much that I can see this coming, but, rather, I'm having a hard time seeing it not coming. The big variable, of course, is that his history of testifying under oath is itself disastrous insofar as he may well believe he can walk in, say whatever he wants, and expect it to stick. It should be easier for White House attorneys to keep him off the stand than to prevent his tweets, but nothing is certain with Mr. Trump, and his personal attorney, Kasowitz, aids and abets the president's ignorant, dangerous attitude toward law, process, and justice.
Leave us not forget who this attorney is, and what the parameters of his role here may involve: https://www.buzzfeed.com/anthonycor...s-biggest-bank?utm_term=.ejXEp3G19#.cqA5DgXk7 A man of multiple loyalties.
As long as he is running 80% approval among likely Republican voters, he is safe from Congress - maybe.
In America, it's possible today for people to believe that someone can perjure themselves and vindicate someone on the same TV screen. (break) You step up on the platform, the man give you a spoon. He says, "Best you get scrapin', son, this your dog-day afternoo--oon". "This is your dog-day afternoon". (Lord have mercy!).
Does that mean the secret is that Donald Trump never actually need start making sense unless Democrats flip both chambers?
#blitheringincoherence | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Okay, this is even stranger; I noticed this in an article yesterday, and skipped the article because I didn't like the detail However, it seems I was wrong and the article was right ... (now where was it?) ... because, well, check out the White House transcript↱: Q So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of those events? PRESIDENT TRUMP: One hundred percent. I didn’t say under oath -- I hardly know the man. I'm not going to say, I want you to pledge allegiance. Who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? I mean, think of it. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. Okay, then. I'm actually stunned; I had been using↗ a transcript that put the words "under oath" as an interrogative from the reporter. This version only shores up the proposition of sailing the Pacific Fleet through the gap, yet I promise you American media is still reporting the promise to testify line. And they're pretty stubborn about it, too; Robert Schlesinger↱ dissents, via U.S. News & World Report: Call me cynical, but I don't see any reason at this point to believe that Trump is going to end up testifying under oath. The simple fact of the matter is that Trump does not have any credibility and there's no reason to believe any particular statement he makes. That fundamental truth about Trump's untruths obtains as well regarding his dodge about whether he has any recordings of those conversations with Comey. He promised an answer on that question "in a very short period of time." In case you missed it, Trump had a contentious exchange with ABC News' Jonathan Karl over Comey's testimony. The president reiterated his assertion that he had been vindicated (he really needs to learn the meaning of the word vindicated) and emphatically accused Comey of lying under oath when he said that Trump had demanded his loyalty and had asked him to drop the criminal investigation into former national security advisor Mike Flynn. "I will tell you, I didn't say that," he said. When Karl asked if Trump himself would be willing to testify, he replied immediately: "One hundred percent." He added that if Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating the Russia scandal, wanted Trump's sworn testimony, "I would be glad to tell him exactly what I just told you, Jon." Indeed, the gist of his argument is that Trump's promises are unreliable, leading up to his reminder: "Look for a similar round of walk-backs and new conditions to sprout up around Trump's pledge to testify under oath." Yet we already have the walkback: One hundred percent. I didn’t say under oath -- I hardly know the man. I'm not going to say, I want you to pledge allegiance. Who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? I mean, think of it. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other. It's kind of strange. ____________________ Notes: Schlesinger, Robert. "'100 Percent' Unreliable". U.S. News & World Report. 9 June 2017. USNews.com. 11 June 2017. http://bit.ly/2r91Zo8 Trump, Donald. "Remarks by President Trump and President Iohannis of Romania in a Joint Press Conference". The White House Office of the Press Secretary. 9 June 2017. WhiteHouse.gov. 11 June 2017. http://bit.ly/2s1vvNQ
