It's ABOUT his policy, not ABOUT his heritage. It literally could not be made any more obvious than if he just said "I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest."
The conflict of interest is inherent... to the wall.
He didn't say "The judge is Mexican. It's an inherent conflict of interest."
The difference matters because it emphasizes the specific CAUSE of the conflict of interest! Which he drilled into the ****ing dirt on repeated interview! You can't deny this with being A.) ignorant of how the English language works, or B.) dishonest. I cannot think of an alternative.
The conflict of interest is inherent... to the wall.
He didn't say "The judge is Mexican. It's an inherent conflict of interest."
The difference matters because it emphasizes the specific CAUSE of the conflict of interest! Which he drilled into the ****ing dirt on repeated interview! You can't deny this with being A.) ignorant of how the English language works, or B.) dishonest. I cannot think of an alternative.
There is no distinction between "the conflict of interest" and "the judge is Mexican" because the conflict of interest is that he's Mexican. It wouldn't be "inherent...to the wall" if the wall were someplace else, or the judge were from someplace else. These details are not incidental, they're part of the same logical syllogism:
I'm building a wall between Mexico + the judge is Mexican = the judge has a conflict of interest.
There's no such thing as a free-floating, non-specific "conflict of interest" that just is. There must always be an explanation about what the conflict is, and why it exists.
sean pointed this out earlier, and didn't really receive a response.
Last edited by Yoda; 06-02-17 at 01:35 PM.