Is Trump, plain and simple, a traitor to his country?

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

Dismissed for standing and not on the merits.

Lucky for us there are more lawsuits still moving through the courts and they are making the same complaint.

So there are a lot of attorneys out there who really need to consult with you before filing these cases.

Are you, then, predicting that one of these cases will proceed on the merits, and will end on appeal with a finding that hotel ownership in the way Trump’s doing it is violative of the Emoluments Clause?

Because I say it won’t. And I’ll put up $500, or any smaller amount, as a wager that I’m right.

Because I’m willing for my prediction in this instance to carry an actual consequence for error.

Are you?

Now, those attorneys – I doubt very seriously they believe they will prevail on the merits. I strongly suspect that they’re doing it to be a thorn in Trump’s side, with the added bonus that maybe lightning will strike.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

Are you, then, predicting that one of these cases will proceed on the merits, and will end on appeal with a finding that hotel ownership in the way Trump’s doing it is violative of the Emoluments Clause?

Because I say it won’t. And I’ll put up $500, or any smaller amount, as a wager that I’m right.

Because I’m willing for my prediction in this instance to carry an actual consequence for error.

Are you?

Now, those attorneys – I doubt very seriously they believe they will prevail on the merits. I strongly suspect that they’re doing it to be a thorn in Trump’s side, with the added bonus that maybe lightning will strike.

I am saying you were expressing concern over my misunderstanding of the emoluments clause. I am merely noting that I am in good company and you need not worry. It’s not just those attorneys arguing that point either. Lots of other attorneys and academics agree so it is hardly some fringe notion my untutored mind conjured up.

And I am not taking the bet since I agreed with you before. Not because the courts will get it right though but because I am confident in the courts allowing corrupt practices as long as they have the merest fig leaf of cover and give massive deference to the president no matter how egregious his actions.

@Bricker

I confidently predict the courts will not decide anything that substantively affects Trump’s practices.

@Whack-a-Mole

I confidently you predict you are right.

And are you accusing those attorneys of unethical behavior? Or is it ethical to bring nuisance lawsuits?

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

I am saying you were expressing concern over my misunderstanding of the emoluments clause. I am merely noting that I am in good company and you need not worry. It’s not just those attorneys arguing that point either. Lots of other attorneys and academics agree so it is hardly some fringe notion.

Not quite: I allege that they don’t expect a win, although they’d be happy to get one.

You seem to genuinely believe that the emoluments clause applies to Trump’s hotel ownership.

And are you accusing those attorneys of unethical behavior? Or is it ethical to bring nuisance lawsuits?

No, a lawyer merely has to believe that he’s stating a colorable claim, not that he will ultimately prevail. A lawyer is perfectly entitled to bring a nuisance lawsuit that has a specific claim that has never been litigated before, even if he’s doing it for the nuisance value. He just needs to be able to truthfully say that he’s got a colorable claim.

That said, some pretty egregious claims manage to get dismissed without drawing Rule 11 sanctions. But I’m sure in this case, there’s no bad faith… . . just a rolling of the dice and hoping boxcars show up.

But none of them would be likely to take my $500 bet, either.

And I am not taking the bet since I agreed with you before. Not because the courts will get it right though but because I am confident in the courts allowing corrupt practices as long as they have the merest fig leaf of cover and give massive deference to the president no matter how egregious his actions.

So. . . if you agree the court will not rule that this practice violates the Emoluments Clause. . . then you agree that the practice does not violate the Clause?

Or are you saying that it does, but that courts will never rule that way?

Because the Clause means what the courts decide it means. So if no court agrees with your view, then that’s pretty definitive as to what the Clause actually means. There’s no “secret meaning,” that you can insist is the truth, even though the courts don’t agree.

Right?

[Little_Nemo]

@Bricker

Yes.

Both the Supreme Court, and me, are saying that.

Then I think you could have been a legal clearer on that earlier in the discussion.

@Bricker

Sure I do. But I don’t accept the idea that YOUR ideas of “moral,” and “ethical,” have any place in a discussion about legal punishment.

The only reason this is a discussion about the legal terms is because you are trying to turn it into one.

The topic of the thread is “Is Trump, plain and simple, a traitor to his country?” It’s not “Has Trump committed acts that fit the legal definition of treason?”

Most people recognize that there are broader general meanings of treason and traitor beyond legal terminology.

If somebody posted they found a bug in their salad, you’d be the entomologist (or maybe the etymologist) arguing that cockroaches aren’t bugs.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

I do see.

But there is general agreement as to the meaning of most of the words.

There is no general agreement, at least in this context, on “America’s interests,” and while “interests” has a general definition that is not in much dispute, the specifics are pretty relevant here.

I provided a definition, literally straight from Merriam-Webster. The definition didn’t include the words ‘America’ or ‘interests.’

I did make a claim that Trump’s behavior fit that definition. The claim used those words.

This is not the first time that you’ve decided to insist that the claim I made was not the claim, but rather the definition. And this is not the first time I’ve had to point out that you’re doing so.

So I give up. There’s absolutely no way one can have a reasonable debate or discussion with someone who repeatedly insists that A is not A, but is in fact Q.

[ElvisL1ves]

The party-before-country approach requires claiming the President isn’t technically guilty of the narrowest, most pettifogging, definition of the capital crime of treason, so MAGA and shut up, Dems.

That’s what we’ve come to. Whatever it is, it surely isn’t patriotism, and it can’t be expected to be excused by history.

[RickJay]

@Bricker

[sup]*[/sup]Greenland is not a country; it’s an autonomous region under the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark. Not relevant to this discussion, but I didn’t want to list it as a “country…”

Greenland absolutely is a country. A country does not necessarily have to be an entirely independent nation-state. Scotland and Wales are countries, for instance. Denmark formally uses the terms “country” and “constituent country” to define what Greenland is.

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

Then I think you could have been a legal clearer on that earlier in the discussion.

The only reason this is a discussion about the legal terms is because you are trying to turn it into one.

The topic of the thread is “Is Trump, plain and simple, a traitor to his country?” It’s not “Has Trump committed acts that fit the legal definition of treason?”

Most people recognize that there are broader general meanings of treason and traitor beyond legal terminology.

If somebody posted they found a bug in their salad, you’d be the entomologist (or maybe the etymologist) arguing that cockroaches aren’t bugs.

Not even a “nice try.” My very first post in this thread asked for a definition of “traitor.” And the only non-legal definitions offered are obfuscatory in turn, speaking of “undermining,” interests without ever defining what exactly that means: specifically how “traitor,” is determined if there are competing interests in play. I gave the example of a President who “undermines” the Fourth Amendment or “undermines” the safety of citizens by releasing felons. Which “undermining” can be ignored, I asked, and which is determinative of a “traitor?”

That has not been answered. So don’t try now to claim I’m avoiding broader definitions— I’m pointing out that no one is willing to nail down what those broad definitions are.

And the reason is simple: you have no objective principled definition of “traitor,” that captures Trump but excludes other Presidents. You need to either claim as fact things that are mere speculation (that Trump is literally taking orders from Putin because of Russian debts, for instance) or that flouting your personal opinions about valid policy choices for the country amounts to traitorous behavior.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

Not even a “nice try.” My very first post in this thread asked for a definition of “traitor.” And the only non-legal definitions offered are obfuscatory in turn, speaking of “undermining,” interests without ever defining what exactly that means: specifically how “traitor,” is determined if there are competing interests in play.

Still running with this, I see. No amount of correction will stop you from pretending that A is not A, but rather Q.

I gave the example of a President who “undermines” the Fourth Amendment or “undermines” the safety of citizens by releasing felons. Which “undermining” can be ignored, I asked, and which is determinative of a “traitor?”

That has not been answered.

A hawk is not a handsaw. If you point to a hawk, and ask me how I plan to cut wood with it, I’m not going to answer your question. I’m just going to say, “that’s a hawk.”

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

In your opinion, or as a matter of clear, objective fact?

Neither. They are conclusions, based on clear objective facts. We can debate the conclusions, if you so desire, on whether his actions have served the country’s interests or his own.

Is there any question that Trump and his businesses have very close ties to Russian based financiers? Is there any question that these financiers act on the direction of Putin?

We can question, for sure, whether Trump has the moral integrity to put the interests of our country above those of his businesses, and that is exactly what this entire thread is all about.

Are you willing, right here, to declare that, in your opinion, Trump’s moral character is such that, when given a choice between what is in the interest of his businesses, and that of the country, he will choose the country?

If so, then congratulations, you have successfully argued your opinion that trump is not a traitor. If you are not so sure that he would be so altruistic as to put the oath of office he swore to above those of his personal selfishness, then you realize that he is a compromised commander in chief, and that betrayal of that oath is inevitable, if not already broken.

@Bricker

I’d call that a betrayal of our county’s best interests. And by the definition of traitor we’re using in this thread, which I am accepting arguendo, it’s traitorous.

Well, right now, Russian military commanders are accusing our military commanders of ignoring the orders that Putin is saying that Trump agreed to in their private meeting that United States officials and citizens are not privy to, but Russians are. The White House has not, as of this morning, corrected that impression that our commanders are to be receiving new orders agreed to in that meeting.

He is taking military direction from Putin, over that of his military advisers. What is he getting in return?

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

Not even a “nice try.” My very first post in this thread asked for a definition of “traitor.” And the only non-legal definitions offered are obfuscatory in turn, speaking of “undermining,” interests without ever defining what exactly that means: specifically how “traitor,” is determined if there are competing interests in play. I gave the example of a President who “undermines” the Fourth Amendment or “undermines” the safety of citizens by releasing felons. Which “undermining” can be ignored, I asked, and which is determinative of a “traitor?”

That has not been answered. So don’t try now to claim I’m avoiding broader definitions— I’m pointing out that no one is willing to nail down what those broad definitions are.

And the reason is simple: you have no objective principled definition of “traitor,” that captures Trump but excludes other Presidents. You need to either claim as fact things that are mere speculation (that Trump is literally taking orders from Putin because of Russian debts, for instance) or that flouting your personal opinions about valid policy choices for the country amounts to traitorous behavior.

Question:

If your friend comes to you, and says that his wife left him for another man, and says that she betrayed him, would you respond by saying that she didn’t, because adultery is not illegal?

[Slash1972]

@k9bfriender

Well, right now, Russian military commanders are accusing our military commanders of ignoring the orders that Putin is saying that Trump agreed to in their private meeting that United States officials and citizens are not privy to, but Russians are. The White House has not, as of this morning, corrected that impression that our commanders are to be receiving new orders agreed to in that meeting.

Sorry to butt into this discussion, but this seems interesting. Do you have a link to this?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Slash1972

Sorry to butt into this discussion, but this seems interesting. Do you have a link to this?

The only people who know what was agreed to aren’t saying what it was, they may not agree, and neither is credible anyway. So a cite request seems futile.

[Slash1972]

@ElvisL1ves

The only people who know what was agreed to aren’t saying what it was, they may not agree, and neither is credible anyway. So a cite request seems futile.

Well, k9bfriender had to read about that somewhere. I doubt he is just making it up.

[RTFirefly]

@k9bfriender

Question:

If your friend comes to you, and says that his wife left him for another man, and says that she betrayed him, would you respond by saying that she didn’t, because adultery is not illegal?

I’m not a Roman Catholic, but Bricker is. And AFAICT from online searches, the RCC liturgy of the Eucharist still has the phrase “on the night he was betrayed” as the lead-in to describing how Jesus broke the bread and so forth.

Guess the word is sufficiently well defined for use in the rite of the Eucharist, but not sufficiently well defined for this discussion. Most peculiar.

[John_Mace]

@k9bfriender

Question:

If your friend comes to you, and says that his wife left him for another man, and says that she betrayed him, would you respond by saying that she didn’t, because adultery is not illegal?

@RTFirefly

I’m not a Roman Catholic, but Bricker is. And AFAICT from online searches, the RCC liturgy of the Eucharist still has the phrase “on the night he was betrayed” as the lead-in to describing how Jesus broke the bread and so forth.

Guess the word is sufficiently well defined for use in the rite of the Eucharist, but not sufficiently well defined for this discussion. Most peculiar.

Both of those are explicitly what the OP said he was not asking about:

*I don’t mean a metaphorical traitor to specific values, or to the people who support him (despite the harm that will eventually befall them from his policies).

I mean, is he literally acting on Russia’s behalf to undermine the United States?*

[k9bfriender]

@Slash1972

Well, k9bfriender had to read about that somewhere. I doubt he is just making it up.

Here you go.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-says-u-s-generals-remarks-discredited-trumps-position-1532479327

Russia criticized the top U.S. military commander of the Middle East on Tuesday, saying he “discredited the official position” of President Trump by expressing hesitance toward working with Russian counterparts in Syria.

Also

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/russia-slams-us-general-votel/index.html

Votel told reporters at the Pentagon that he had received no new direction following the Trump-Putin meeting and Trump has also appeared to suggest that while many issues related to the region had been discussed, the implementation of any agreements would not take place until a second meeting between Trump and Putin.

We have our commander of armed forces in the middle east being undermined by Russia, just in the fact that he is being accused of ignoring orders that Russians were made aware of, but not our military commanders.

[Slash1972]

Cool, thanks!

[RTFirefly]

@John_Mace

Both of those are explicitly what the OP said he was not asking about:

*I don’t mean a metaphorical traitor to specific values, or to the people who support him (despite the harm that will eventually befall them from his policies).

I mean, is he literally acting on Russia’s behalf to undermine the United States?*

That question is unanswerable, because Bricker tells us that ‘undermine’ isn’t defined clearly enough. :rolleyes:

Anyhow, Bricker’s been going on about how the dictionary definition of ‘traitor’ (or maybe something else somebody said that wasn’t offered up as a definition) isn’t sufficiently well defined. We can show it’s well defined in other contexts to support the notion that it’s well defined with respect to being a traitor to America.

[k9bfriender]

@John_Mace

Both of those are explicitly what the OP said he was not asking about:

*I don’t mean a metaphorical traitor to specific values, or to the people who support him (despite the harm that will eventually befall them from his policies).

I mean, is he literally acting on Russia’s behalf to undermine the United States?*

Right, but first, we have to determine what betrayal is, then we can determine whether that betrayal was for Russian interests.

If I asked Bricker’s friend, “Is your wife, plain and simple, a traitor to your marriage?” “is [s]he literally acting on [not the husband]Russia’s behalf to undermine [our marriage]the United States?” What answer should I get?