Did Trump Claim to Be a Dictator When He Spoke to Turning Point USA’s Teen Action Summit? Four Kinds of Context

Donald Trump, White House Portrait

In his speech yesterday to Turning Point USA’s Teen Action Summit, did Donald Trump claim to be a dictator? Maybe. He made one startling statement: “Then I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.” 

Do whatever he wants? What does that mean? Let’s look at context. Without context, we have no meaning; yet context points us in different directions.

Let’s start with the speech’s audience, the public context:

President Donald Trump spoke at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in Washington DC. Turning Point USA is a conservative organization whose purpose is to combat what they feel is a liberal bias in America’s colleges and universities. This was, in short, a partisan, pro-Trump audience. Turning Point USA has a, shall we say, dubious accuracy record. The audience’s willingness to believe outrageously false things comes as no surprise.

Next, let’s look at the constitutional context:

Can the president do anything, just like a king? Or a dictator? Trump’s bold claim to unlimited power produced shock and outrage from his opponents and some objective observers, but surprisingly few peeps from Republicans. The National Review, which has guarded constitutionalism, posted several articles this morning about the Robert Mueller hearings, but nothing about Trump’s claim to unlimited executive power.

US Constitution, Nat'l Archives

Article 2 of the United States Constitution specifies the president’s powers. It specifies a list of powers, which most reasonable people would think covers everything he’s allowed to do. The Federalist Papers, especially #69 by Alexander Hamilton, discuss restrictions on the President’s power and distinguished the president’s limited power from a king’s.

What about context within the speech itself? What was Trump trying to say?

In this case, the context doesn’t help us a lot, as Trump’s outrageous claim was sandwiched in between his complaints about the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. 

“I could find something — I could take anybody in this audience.  Give me $40 million.  Give me unlimited FBI, unlimited interviews, unlimited — they interviewed 500 people.  Listen to this: Two thousand five hundred subpoenas.  They did everything.  Their collusion; no collusion.  They have no collusion.  (Applause.)

“Then I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.  But I don’t even talk about that because they did a report and there was no obstruction.  After looking at it, our great Attorney General read it.  He’s a total professional.  He said, ‘There’s nothing here.  There’s no obstruction.’  So they referenced, ‘No obstruction.’  So you have no collusion, no obstruction, and yet it goes on.” 

Maybe Trump was claiming that law enforcement has a right to stop him, or maybe he was referring to his ability to fire Robert Mueller whenever he wished. Who knows?

But that leads us to the media context. The nation’s political attention today (and yesterday) was wound up with the Mueller hearings. During much of his speech to the Turning Point USA Teen Action Summit, President Trump may have been thinking about little else; his bizarre speech talked about little else. But maybe that’s the best time for the President to seize excessive power: one issue distracts everybody, and that gives Trump a chance to do something outrageous. Did he mean it? Does he plan to seize excessive power? Or was his claim of power just about the Mueller investigation and nothing else?

So, we can reach one of two conclusions: 1. Mr. Trump claimed dictatorial powers, disguising his campaign into another context, or 2. He asserted that he had the authority to stop the Mueller investigation. Or both?

Ambiguous statements, that is, statements that can mean more than one thing, are a politician's best friend and truth's worst enemy. 

Comments: 

First, no one who understood the Constitution of the United States could possibly think that the president has the right to do whatever he wants. The Constitution's idea is to keep any one person or group from getting too much power.

Second, the partisan responses (or non-responses) are disturbing. Conservatives have long claimed to be the Constitution’s guardians. Why are they silent? Is it just because it’s their guy, not a Democrat, who claimed excessive power? Does that make it okay? Will the president’s sycophants try to rein him in? Based on past performance, I suspect not.

Third, most presidents give important speeches from a prepared manuscript. That’s because the entire world hangs in every word the president says, and mistakes can be devastating. Was this one sentence – “I have the right to do whatever I want as President” – a mistake? A careless slip of the tongue? A Freudian slip that accidentally declared his true intentions? Or a bold coup d’état? Since it is only one sentence lacking any supporting explanation or argument, albeit a disturbing sentence, we don’t know.

Still, all patriots, be on the alert!