Sworn Disclosure Statement: Fill & Download for Free

Yes.For starters, sworn testimony is evidence.The prior disclosures Ford made are corroborating evidence.The sworn statements from people who say they heard about the incidents around the time they happened are evidence.There's more, but since the question was about any evidence I hope that will suffice.

Many Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton were hoping to see the first woman elected president. After all, we were coming off of two terms of Barack Obama, the first African American president, so it seemed rather fitting in these times of equal opportunity to have a woman in the Oval Office.But to the surprise of many, Donald Trump, Mr. Misogyny himself, squashed the apparent certainty that we were about to elect a female commander-in-chief.Or did he?That's right. You guessed it... Donald Trump actually IS the first woman president!You remember the fuss Trump made over Obama's birth certificate? Trump was part of the conspiracy-theorist crowd who claimed Barack was not a natural born citizen. The real reason Trump kept pushing that issue was because of his inner guilt, hiding a deep dark secret - his own birth certificate is forged!Sure, he was born in America (Queens, New York, as a matter of fact), but his birth certificate originally stated that he was a girl.Yep. XX chromosomes. (S)he's an innie, not an outie, and I'm not talking about belly buttons.You see, her father Fred and mother Mary Anne tried to raise her as a girl named “Donna”, but she kept insisting from a very young age that she was a boy, always putting on boy's clothes and throwing away her dolls in favor of toy trucks and ‘Tonka’ construction cranes.So, despite her small hands, they gave up and started calling her “Donald”. Besides, with two brothers and two sisters, Trump's father was happy to tip the sibling gender scale in the male direction, much to the disappointment of Trump's mother, of course.There is certainly nothing wrong with being transgender. The acceptance of cross gender identity in today’s world is a wonderful thing, but when Trump was a small child, the decision was made to keep it a secret at all costs. Anyone who had knowledge of Trump's true gender was paid off handsomely and persuaded to sign a non-disclosure agreement, never to reveal that Donald was actually female. Everyone from his childhood pediatricians and nannies, to his ex-wives and lesbian conquests, to his current physician and secret service team, are all sworn to absolute secrecy.As with all outlandish conspiracy theories, the question comes up as to why. Why the big secret that Trump is not packing junk? That he's got no willie? That he is a she? Why go to such great lengths to hide this fact?It seems the real reason Trump has been so misogynistic in his statements towards women is because of his inner shame that he actually is one.Parody image: Response To Trump Administration’s “Dress Like A Woman” Wish For The Women In The White HouseDisclaimer: This answer is complete hogwash - not true at all. Donald Trump is really a man (or, at least, I think so).

This would be Const. Art. II, § 3. This provision urges the president to “take care” to execute the law. Article II is a busy section that lays out the structure and responsibility of the various branches of government. In the section on the presidency, the take-care language occurs. This clause requires the president to obey and enforce all laws, though the president retains some discretion in interpreting the laws and determining how to enforce them. Like much of the Constitution, this requires judicial interpretation because the language is both broad and vague.I found only 47 cases on the “take care” clause. The only recent one was N.L.R.B. v. New Vista Nursing and Rehabilitation United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.May 16, 2013719 F.3d 203195 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2781163 Lab.Cas. P 10, 597 on the use of recess appointments by the president - in this case to the NLRB. Before directly addressing recess appointments, the Court felt it necessary to try to grapple (unsuccessfully IMHO) with the powers of the presidency. Here’s the entire paragraph on the “take care” clause”:“Ultimately, the executive power must be strong enough to allow the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and “Commission all the Officers of the United States.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, cl. 1. The central role of the President in appointing the officers serving his branch of government was devised by the Framers with great purpose. See Myers, 272 U.S. at 117–19, 47 S.Ct. 21. By having a hand in choosing the officers serving in his branch, the President would be able to surround himself with the people he believed best fit to help him fulfill his duty to faithfully execute the laws under the Take Care Clause. See id. Not only does he need to have input in the officers chosen, but the President needs the power to keep offices occupied in order to keep his branch and the government, as a whole, running. Therefore, ensuring that the Senate does not unduly encroach upon the President's role in the appointments process is integral to ensuring that the President is able to faithfully execute his duties. Id. at 117–18, 47 S.Ct. 21 (“[The President's] selection of administrative officers is essential to the execution of the laws by him....”).”All very nice, but not really going anywhere. Further on, the Court returns to that clause to address more meaningfully presidential power:“ Further, in reviewing the tradition and practice of the President, presidential actions are entitled to a presumption of constitutionality.The Majority rejects any such notion that presidential actions deserve special regard, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly embraced such a principle. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 703, 710, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) (recognizing that “courts have traditionally shown the utmost deference to Presidential responsibilities”); Chadha, 462 U.S. at 951, 103 S.Ct. 2764 (“When any Branch acts, it is presumptively exercising the power the Constitution has delegated to it. When the Executive acts, it presumptively acts in an executive or administrative capacity as defined in Art. II.” (citing J.W. Hampton & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 406, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed. 624 (1928))); see also Evans, 387 F.3d at 1222 (“And when the President is acting under the color of express authority of the United States Constitution, we start with a presumption that his acts are constitutional.... Just to show that plausible interpretation of the pertinent constitutional clause exist other than that advanced by the President is not enough.”); United States v. Allocco, 305 F.2d 704, 713–14 (2d Cir.1962). Not only does the President take an oath of fealty to the Constitution, and not only is his most important constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” but such a presumption is integral to the operation of the executive branch. See Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 610–11, 72 S.Ct. 863 (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (establishing that a practice “engaged in by Presidents who have also sworn to uphold the Constitution ... may be treated as a gloss on ‘executive Power’ ”).The Majority carves out its own exception, suggesting that, in particular, no such presumption applies in separation of powers cases, but this presumption should apply with the most force in such cases. In executing the duties of his office, the President must not be hindered because the constitutionality of his actions is held in doubt. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210–11, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962) (emphasizing the importance of respecting the finality of the actions of the political branches); Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 236, 113 S.Ct. 732, 122 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993) (same). For a host of self-evident reasons, the judiciary should avoid upending longstanding practices of the other branches unless they are plainly unconstitutional. See Noel Canning, 705 F.3d at 515 (Griffith, J., concurring); Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 345–48, 56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936)(Brandeis, J., concurring) (acknowledging principles of judicial restraint regarding constitutional questions).” Many pages later, the Court finally concludes that “The President appropriately exercised his discretion, relying on the supplemental power of the Recess Appointments Clause to keep those offices filled for the sanctity of the public. The exclusion of intrasession recesses from the definition .”You could look over the exact same language in a state’s constitution in Shapp v. Butera Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. December 08, 1975 22 Pa.Cmwlth. 229 348 A.2d 910 and see the same judicial inability to come to any definite grip on what the clause actually means. In this state case, the minority leader of the State House of Representatives filed an appeal from a denial by the governor of the right to examine, inspect and copy financial disclosure statements filed in the governor's office by members of the governor's cabinet and members of certain agencies, boards, and commissions. The Commonwealth Court, No. 294 C.D. 1975, Kramer, J., held that such statements voluntarily submitted in response to executive order requesting them did not come within the definition of ‘public record’ found in the Right To Know Act and thus minority leader had no legal right to examine or copy such statements.The bottom line is that this phrase means whatever a particular court thinks it does. Whether a specific execution action is or is not authorized by the “take care” provision really depends on how it is interpreted, with courts working hard at it, but since each case turns on its own facts, there really is little precedent unless someone can show that the facts in a particular case are very, very similar to those of an already existing case. Even then, the person might not want to argue similarity if the outcome is not desired. It’s one of those things that law clerks hate and judges dread, but sometimes it has to be dealt with.