Okay, as I've said before, Trump employs a fast-and-loose style. He doesn't attempt to hide it at all. When he's defending it, he points to probabilities: how often he turns out to have been right or at other times (other issues), on to something. Other Presidents have played fast and loose with the facts but never wanted to admit it or appear to the masses to be doing it.That doesn't make Trump's style right. The others were wrong and not even less so.
Playing fast and loose with the facts is just plain stupid. Sometimes, even people who don't do it or who try to avoid it make mistakes. Owning up to that is the sign of a good character.
If Donald Trump wants to openly wing it more than any other President in history, fine. However, he needs to qualified his statements in real time. He needs to say that he's engaging in open speculation or that he's referring to statements by others that he doesn't know have been substantiated or not. That would be refreshing coming from any President!
Those out to get Trump are going to fail, however, if they are going to attempt to hold him to selective connotations of the terms he uses just to suit their purposes. Everyone has to learn to see the various ways things can be taken and only seek greater clarity were ambiguities might lead to otherwise needless trouble.
As for the mundane politics of Trump running with an NYT headline using the term "wiretap" or "wiretapping" and stretching the term "campaign" to allow Trump to say he was under surveillance under the Obama administration (as the unified Presidency, meaning at Obama's command or approval or allowance), he should have said 1) the NYT story was an allegation 2) he thinks surveilling his campaign is in a sense, surveilling him and 3) he's referring to the intelligence community (surveilling his campaign) as part of the unified executive concerning which, the buck stopped with President Obama. He needed to do that at the time he made the statement (posted the Tweet). That said, politically again, it still was a bad idea to even bring it up.
If he had not raised it, then all of the focus could have remained on the fact that there is zero hard-evidence that Putin and the Russian state conducted, ordered, or condoned any hacking or interference in the US election. The term "circumstantial" is been thrown around, but there isn't any credible reason to ascribe the term "evidence," whether circumstantial or otherwise, to much of what is being suggested is such against the Russians.
News coverage by Russia about the US election is not interference. Russians favoring any particular outcome is not interfering. The US covers elections all over the world, and Americans (public and private) openly voice what they'd like to see as the outcome.
The preponderance of evidence clearly shows that the entire dust-up about Russia is a fake-news red herring. The focus should be on the who, what, where, when, why, and how much concerning the Democratic primaries in which the Party leadership clearly connived to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)