Parsing Trump’s words to deny payment is more straightforward than that.
If Warren took a DNA test and the results showed Native American then Trump would pay. If the results came back with 0.0% (as I wager occurred) he would not.
Let’s not deal with hypotheticals. Here’s what the actual DNA test showed:
A pure Native American ancestor appears in her family tree in the range of 6-10 generations ago.
Warren went to an expert to conduct a separate test on the raw data, which Trump could reasonably object is a step beyond and highly questionable. His words you quote are, “if you take the test and it shows…”
So going out of the way to get a high quality test was questionable. But getting some quick and cheap genetic test would have been beyond reproach? I’m not buying it.
If the expert’s analysis is accurate, it doesn’t comport with representing herself as Native American.
Certainly not full-blooded, but that’s not what she’s claimed. Specifically, what she claimed was that her great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American. The expert analysis is consistent with Warren’s claim.
As I’ve said before, I think it was an honest mistake on her part based on family stories.
I also believed it could have been an honest mistake. But every now and then family stories are true. This appears to be what happened here.
The bend-over-backwards efforts to defend her mistake are about as silly as criticism of it.
Without evidence, any claims are suspect. Now we’re past that point.
What you refer to the “actual DNA test,” isn’t. Whether the analysis is more accurate or “high quality” as you say, is beyond our expertise I’m sure. Thus I am not discussing possible errors in methodology being raised in articles online. For the purpose of our discussion, I’m taking the analysis as accurate, but let’s not pretend we know it.
The Warren family story and the amount of DNA are possibly connected or possibly coincidental. We don’t know.
Straightforward reading of Trump’s words as contractual language reasonably excludes the kind of ad hoc analysis done here. I see the contrary argument, so you need not belabor the point, but the limited reading based on the precise words you quote is reasonable.