I daresay he was operating from the well-established precedent of just kicking the can down the road because dealing with the problem here-and-now is politically challenging.
Personally I can’t say with certainty that gravity won’t cease to function forever ten minutes from now, resulting in us all being flung off the planet to our deaths. It’s definitely a possibility. I’m pretty sure it won’t happen, but it’s a possibility.
I’m also pretty sure Trump’s a Putin stooge. But, as with literally everything else I know outside of mathematical/logical tautologies and the like, it’s not a certainty.
That’s not an oath to execute immigration law, as you stated.
Now, his oath is to, as you quoted, “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, and in order to do so, he does have to prioritize what laws will be executed. If it said, ensure that each and every law enacted by congress is enforced with not discretion", then you’d have a point.
If you sped 1 mph past an officer in a federal jurisdiction, and he doesn’t do anything about it, does that mean that the president has violated his oath?
Now, if Obama had deprioritized deporting DACA recipients, in exchange for personal enrichment, you’d have a case. Instead, he made the hard choice that he felt was best for the country, without considering how it will affect his personal financial situation.
OK. So with that framework in mind, what unambiguous and objective thing has Trump done that represents his traitorusness?
Ah. I see your problem.
Just to clue you in, in case English is not your native language: most American speakers of English don’t introduce statements with “this is a statement of fact,” “this is an opinion,” “this is a conclusion drawn from the following supporting evidence,” or similar phrases.
Usually we rely on context to distinguish between these things. And if it’s unclear, it’s always permissible to ask.
In terms of order of magnitude, how would you compare the likelihood of being wrong on gravity ending as opposed to wrong on Trump being in explicit thrall to Putin (as opposed to merely being a venal idiot)?
Which I have done, in several posts:
See?
Okay, you want us to state explicitly that our opinions are indeed opinions.
And if we don’t, you’ll… I dunno… object? Be our guest.
I’m just going to assume you don’t literally mean order of magnitude in the mathematical sense, because I don’t make a habit of nailing down my likelihood estimations in strict numerical terms that would allow direct order-of-magnitude comparisons.
Trump being an honest man is more likely than the imminent cessation of gravity.
But I’m still pretty damn certain that he’s compromised. Certain enough that, in conventional english speech, I would not feel obligated to qualify every mention of his potential traitorousness with an admission that I’m a human with limited knowledge.
Things he has specifically done? Well, we did go on about emoluments. He is profiting directly from foreign entities staying in his hotels, and is inclined to treat them with favor, but that’s small beans here, right? This undermines the United State’s ability to have at least a perception of fairness in deals.
He specifically gave an exemption to a Chinese company that had sanctions against it for violating our trading embargo on Iran. He then had the Chinese govt approve his business deals. This undermines the US’s ability to enforce trade restrictions, as they are only in effect until the offender makes an appropriate offer.
He stood in front of the world, and said that he had less confidence in the US’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies than he had in Putin’s word. It could well be inferred, though admittedly currently not proven, that this is because he has extensive financial dealings in Russia, and doesn’t want to upset the person who has total control over that country.
He has allowed Russia to tell our commanders what their orders are, rather than giving the orders through proper chain of command. This, once again, is purportedly due to his financial dealings again.
These may all be little things to you, but they do add up, and they also, for the real reason of this discussion, are also predictors of future acts, as well as putting other acts into perspective.
When you make your remarks about Obama, are you actually intending to make the argument that he did the things he did for self serving personal gain? If so, then make that argument along with your insinuations that he did something you didn’t like. If not, then it is not relevant to this discussion in the slightest, as the point is that Trump is making these decisions based on what benefits him personally, with no regard to what is best for the country he swore an oath to.
Well, good to know there’ve been some posts where you have done this.
Yes. He has probably knowingly made efforts to cover up exactly that, and is *almost certainly *attempting to cover up ongoing Russian efforts to modify vote totals in the 2018 election. I believe those things are happening, that Trump is at least generally aware of it, and that he is acting to allow them to happen. I further believe he is sabotaging the interests of the United States at the direction of Russia; whether that is in exchange for election meddling, something else (like repaying debts) or both, I am not sure, but it’s one or both of those. I’ve little doubt his (and Sean Hannity’s) sudden, weird condemnations of Montenegro were orders from the Kremlin.
I am less convinced that he is acting in a traitorous manner because of “Kompromat” - I am sure the Russians have some, but I am dubious it’s Trump’s motivation.
I also believe he is not the only person in his administration knowingly doing this.
I know it’s a terrible thing to think, but I feel the odds heavily favor that time will prove me right. Things are much, much worse than most people are presently willing to believe.
Absolutely not. I don’t have any argument of the sort against Obama. I think he was, as Presidents go, more honest than most. The sole reason I bring up Obama’s various activities is to illustrate that the same arguments used against Trump could be turned against Obama; the same rules you’re proposing that would find Trump in violation of the emoluments clause would also find Obama in violation.
I don’t think either of them were in violation.
I’m very certain that this is NOT violative of the emoluments clause. There are seveal court cases now making htis claim, and I believe they all will end either dismissed, tried and verdict for Trump, or on appeal with verdict for Trump NOT violating the emoluments clause.
Do you disagree? If this happens, can we agree to resurrect this page and you’ll admit error as to this point?
Can you give me a link to substantiate this?
I’m perfectly happy to leave you to inferences. I’m discussing here what can be asserted as solid fact. Perhaps it was because the intel agencies pissed him off. Perhaps it was because he made a reasoned, calculated decision not to upset the Russia relationship apple cart, a decision that any president can make without being a traitor. I agree your theory is possible, and maybe even likely, but by no means is it the only reasonable possibility.
Same objection. There is (as yet) no follow-up to “confirm” the Russian version of these orders. All that happened here is Russia made a public statement. I have no idea how he “allowed” them to do so.
Right, but that’s much more of an indictment that speaks to his being a metaphorical traitor to specific values, as opposed to solid evidence that he is literally acting on Russia’s behalf to undermine the United States.
Wait, that’s why you “suspect”? You suspect because you asked for specifics, or you asked for specifics because you suspect?
Oh, wait, liberal hypocrisy. Of course. Trés duh, mais non?
Bricker, can you prove your suspicions, and do you think these suspicions would hold up in a court of law?
Absolutely not, and no.
But that’s why I try to use words like “suspect,” instead of confident, declarative assertions. I want to make clear that mine is a mere suspicion.
And the reason that I keep pointing out the differences is because Obama’s activities were in the furtherance of his political goals, of which, a large portion of the country agreed were in the best interests of the country, even if there were those who disagreed, while Trump’s activities are in furtherance of his personal wealth, which does not benifit anyone.
That I feel that taking money from foreign governments is a violation of the constitution where it says that you may not receive anything, of any kind from foreign governments will not change. I don’t know how it will play out in the courts. I am hopeful that it will be favorable to the constitution, rather than to Trump, but I cannot make predictions based on what I hope. If you would like to resurrect this page later, and rub my face in the fact that a specific legal case relating to this gets dismissed, knock yourself out.
If it does go on, and the court does find against Trump’s activities, I have no intention of resurrecting this thread to rub your face in it, either, but rather, to go on from there.
Which part, the offer of rollback of sanctions, or the quid pro quo? I will admit that the second part is harder to prove, as it could just be coincidence that the Chinese govt chose to approve his dealings at the same time that he is looking to lift sanctions on a major Chinese company. Circumstantial evidence isn’t often used to convict in a court of law, but it certainly can be used to take a closer look, correct?
Well, it is a fact that he threw our intel agencies under the bus. You are correct in that we are unable to discern a specific motive without mind reading, or at least subpoenaing some records.
Maybe if he had ever let us seen his tax returns, we’d know that he wasn’t in bed with the Russians, and we’d have no concern. But, he refused to release them, because only people who have nothing to hide hide things.
We know he caused harm to the US, we just can’t prove the reason that he did it. You are correct in that he may have done so for petty and vindictive reasons, rather than personal profiting, but betrayal for petty and vindictive reasons is still betrayal. Benedict Arnold didn’t really betray the US for the money and the position, he did so because he felt that he was not respected enough. Of course, he was never convicted of treason, but most would say he was a traitor anyway.
As of this time, that I have seen, the white house has not contradicted the Russian statement.
If he does call out Putin and Russia for their inaccuracies, then this would not be a good example of him undermine the country. But, every minute that he does not, every moment that he allows Russia to talk to our military as if it were the one in charge, our country gets undermined further and further.
Well, yeah, that’s because we don’t have proof, yet. We’re little peons on a message board, and it would require a few higher ranks of security clearance to even really glean what we really know and don’t know about his actions and the actions of other actors that may influence him. We can only make some levels of speculation based on what is public knowledge, and as that is limited knowledge, there is room for speculation and interpretation.
I do interpret the acts that Trump has taken as to being in the interests of Trump, and only Trump. When one uses a position of power for personal enrichment, at the cost of the constituency that you are sworn to represent, that’s traitorous. Whether this will ever be proved, or whether we will even be proven wrong, is something that can only be speculated. But, as I said, the conclusions that I have come to, based on the facts as known and presented to the public, is that Trump has, and will, make decisions that are not in the interests of the country in exchange for personal gain, and he has, and will do, them at the behest of foreign actors who most certainly do not have the interests of our country at heart.
The quid pro quo.
Right! But the OP’s ask:
That doesn’t seem to invite “speculation and interpretation,” does it? That asks for a literal fact.
Well, since none of us here are Donald Trump or his hypothetical Russian handlers, speculation and interpretation are pretty much all we’ve got, at least for now.
If we’re paying attention to the OP it narrows the examination considerably. Specifically it becomes less about which specific inappropriate things he’s done, and more about whether he’s doing them on orders from Putin. For example it’s not necessarily illegal or anything for him to try and turn all our conventional allies into enemies, but if he’s doing it Putin’s order then it would become an example relevant to the OP.
I don’t believe that anybody on this message board is in a position to get hard facts about Trump’s motivation for any of the shitty things he’s done, so the discussion would necessarily include speculation and inference.