-
@ Avestruz
2025-04-21 05:35:31
This is from perplexity:
Actions a President Working for U.S. Enemies Might Take (With Plausible Deniability)
If a U.S. president were secretly working for America's enemies but wanted to maintain plausible deniability, they might:
Undermine U.S. alliances (e.g., NATO, EU) by sowing discord or refusing to support collective defense, weakening America’s global position while publicly claiming to prioritize “America First” policies.
Refuse or delay implementing sanctions against hostile foreign powers, justifying it as diplomatic strategy or economic necessity.
Publicly side with adversarial leaders over U.S. intelligence agencies, casting doubt on American institutions and emboldening foreign rivals.
Attack or discredit domestic institutions (e.g., the FBI, intelligence community, free press) to erode public trust and create internal division, all while claiming to fight corruption or “the deep state”.
Obstruct investigations into foreign interference or downplay evidence of attacks on U.S. democracy, arguing such probes are politically motivated.
Promote policies or rhetoric that divide Americans along racial, political, or economic lines, increasing domestic instability under the guise of “free speech” or “law and order”.
Share sensitive information with adversaries under the pretense of diplomacy or transparency.
Maintaining Plausible Deniability
Such actions could be framed as legitimate policy disagreements, administrative priorities, or misunderstandings, making it difficult to prove “specific intent to betray” the United States—a key requirement for a legal treason conviction. The Constitution requires clear evidence of “levying war” or “adhering to enemies, giving them aid and comfort,” plus either a confession or testimony from two witnesses to the same overt act. As a result, even blatantly harmful actions could be excused or rationalized, protecting the president from prosecution for treason unless intent and direct aid to the enemy are clearly established.