In my view, this add significant weight to the proposition that previous presidents who facilitated the invasion of our country, were engaged in traitorous acts.
This proves that it has been wholly within the power of past presidents to stop the invasion of our country by foreign criminals, and trained foreign military subversives. The "congress failed to pass legislation", argument is totally invalidated.
Does it then not prove that every leader thats ever been could have made everything better but chose not to?
Why is there only one that does this differently?
Not stopping an invasion of the country, or rather enabling it by inaction, is a bit different that just a "thing" that could have been improved. One is incompetence, the other is treasonous.
In my view, this add significant weight to the proposition that previous presidents who facilitated the invasion of our country, were engaged in traitorous acts.
This proves that it has been wholly within the power of past presidents to stop the invasion of our country by foreign criminals, and trained foreign military subversives. The "congress failed to pass legislation", argument is totally invalidated.
Does it then not prove that every leader thats ever been could have made everything better but chose not to? Why is there only one that does this differently?
Because they were all getting a chunk of the action. Follow the money.
Not stopping an invasion of the country, or rather enabling it by inaction, is a bit different that just a "thing" that could have been improved. One is incompetence, the other is treasonous.