Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution as president

[ThisIsMe]

So the Trump lawyers are not arguing that Trump didn't aid or participate, or incite, or plan the Jan 6th "insurrection", but are arguing that the 14th amendment clause on anyone participating in an insurrection or aids the enemy, who has taken an oath to support the Constitution previous to the act, is disqualified for running for any office again....because of that wording??

WOW! That's pretty good lawyering.... I guess it is their only shot....

I think they will lose, but still good lawyering to come up with it.....

It also makes it appear that the lawyers believe Trump did participate, (from the sidelines) in the insurrection, and that it was an insurrection!?!???

Apparently yeah, it’s their argument. But I didn’t post it because of that, i posted it because OP tried to say that trump said he didn’t have to support the constitution.

 

[Nostra]

Please provide credible proof of your claims - with context.

You first.
.Rawsewage? Haha!

 

[Lesh]

Ok, so firstly, your title is misleading, trump himself didn’t say this, it was his lawyers, just for clarification.

Secondly, where did rawstory get the article, they only link to a tweet by some other lady who has a segment of some text but doesn’t really say where she got it from. Does anyone have a link to the actual full text of the filing document that his lawyers filed?

Also, rawstory is the only one to run this story?

Jesus Christ. That’s his lawyers speaking on his behalf and with his approval.

Shut up

 

[Nostra]

In looking for the story from another source, I found an inteview with the Colorodo Secretary of state talking about the citizen civil lawsuit to keep trump off the ballot in Colorado, on the proposed arguement, he participated in an insurrection. She did not speak much to the merrits, but mainly the concept and right of the six to file the lawsuit. She did not repeat the claim, that supposedly his lawyers wanted to argue, he had no duty to follow and support the constitution.
In another article from Associated Press, dated Sept. 22, a judge in Colorodo ruled trump could not threaten or intimidate witness or participants that might be in the trial. The only other article, I found was from Courthouse News, today, in Colorado, Second Judicial District Judge Sarah Wallace ruled against Trump's Sept 22nd, motion to dismiss.

In the motion to dismiss, team trump was arguing 1. That all he did and said was protected speech. 2. This should be decided in Congress, not state court.

It should be noted, by me, that the states run the elections, not Congress, so Colorado is within its rights to hear the case.

The judge ruled the case would go forward and be heard, with a date set for Oct 30.

Again, no mention of Trump, through his lawyers, arguing he had no duty to support and defend the constitution.

Denver judge SLAPPs down Trump motion to dismiss ballot challenge

Polls put former President Donald Trump as a front-runner in the 2024 GOP primary, but a group of party members question whether he's eligible for office while facing criminal charges in several courts.

www.courthousenews.com

For the moment, I have to call bullshit on Trump lawyers arguing for Trump, he had no duty to follow and support the constitution. Something like that would have been Big News, no matter who was being bombed and terrorized.

so why is this bullshit thread still here?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Jesus Christ. That’s his lawyers speaking on his behalf and with his approval.

Shut up

I have no idea if that’s true. I’ve no idea if trumps lawyers go to him for everything they are going to present in their case, beyond that, it’s also not apparent that they are even arguing that trump doesn’t have to support the cotus, they are making an argument about the application of S3 of the 14A based on the wording of the oath he takes.

 

[Billiejeens]

Oh
Liz Cheney is your source.
You are exponentially most fucking stupid than I previously thought.

 

[White 6]

Trump began his ‘presidency’ lying under oath.

Typical trump

 

[White 6]

Did you read the actual petitions? I linked in my previous post. Also the other reply that was linked in the Twitter of the link that the OP made is in that article too

I read the submission from team trump to dismiss that was rejected by the Judge.

 

[jknowgood]

Please provide credible proof of your claims - with context.

The border is wide open.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why can't we be a One Party Nation, and positively affirm that this is Year 0 of the Glorious 1,000 year democrat Reich?

 

[White 6]

so why is this bullshit thread still here?

It actually was reported. It was actually current. We have seen members from the left and the right use Raw Story as a supporting link. The thread is valid for discussion and did generate valid discussion, research and reporting by multiple users. It actually could turn out to be a line pursued by team trump after the 30th, not that it would be effective.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why can't we be a One Party Nation, and positively affirm that this is Year 0 of the Glorious 1,000 year democrat Reich?

“Parties” are a problem for sure. Maybe not way back in years gone by, but certainly today, being a member of a party seems to put you in conflict with the other party.

What’s funny though is when you see those “man on the street” interviews where the guy tells the people all these policies, and they all agree those are good policies, then the guy tells them that those are actually policies of the candidate from the other party. It just shows you that most people actually agree on things, but the power of a party label can make one dismiss things they would otherwise find agreeable.

 

[Care4all]

Apparently yeah, it’s their argument. But I didn’t post it because of that, i posted it because OP tried to say that trump said he didn’t have to support the constitution.

Well, essentially, THAT IS what is being argued if you take Trump's lawyers defense argument....

that the constitution had no problem with the president breaking the constitution and did not include a former president who broke the constitution in the 14th A insurrection clause.....

They are arguing, that a former President who abet and aided an insurrection or (self coup detat) CAN RUN AGAIN for office.

which is preposterous, imo!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

“Parties” are a problem for sure. Maybe not way back in years gone by, but certainly today, being a member of a party seems to put you in conflict with the other party.

What’s funny though is when you see those “man on the street” interviews where the guy tells the people all these policies, and they all agree those are good policies, then the guy tells them that those are actually policies of the candidate from the other party. It just shows you that most people actually agree on things, but the power of a party label can make one dismiss things they would otherwise find agreeable.

Agreed

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well, essentially, THAT IS what is being argued if you take Trump's lawyers defense argument....

that the constitution had no problem with the president breaking the constitution and did not include a former president who broke the constitution in the 14th A insurrection clause.....

They are arguing, that a former President who abet and aided an insurrection or (self coup detat) CAN RUN AGAIN for office.

which is preposterous, imo!!!

Well, again, I think it’s simpler than that. They are trying to make the argument that S3 simply doesn’t apply to the president because of the wording of the oath he takes. I think it’s a word play move as well and I think it’s flimsy, but that’s their argument.

 

[Redfish]

Former President Donald Trump is arguing to a judge in Colorado that he was not required to "support" the Constitution as president, reported Brandi Buchman from Law & Crime.

The argument came as he seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the state by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), seeking to have him disqualified from the ballot in the state under the 14th Amendment. The Insurrection Clause of the amendment prohibits those who have "engaged in insurrection" against the United States from holding a civil, military, or elected office without unless a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate approve.

But Trump's lawyers are arguing that the specific language of the Constitution argues that this requirement only applies to people in offices who are bound to "support" the Constitution — and the presidency is not one of those offices.

Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution as president

Former President Donald Trump is arguing to a judge in Colorado that he was not required to "support" the Constitution as president, reported Brandi Buchman from Law & Crime.The argument came as he seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the state by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in...

www.rawstory.com

This is totally bizarre! If the President of the United States isn't required to support the Constitution - then who is? What do you think?

The lawyers are splitting hairs with the wording of the constitution, but technically they are legally correct. Do you think Biden is supporting the constitution when he opens our borders and takes bribes from foreign interests? You libs are all hypocrites, you prove it every day with every post.

 

[OldFlame]

so why is this bullshit thread still here?

Because he has deep and severe TDS and is incapable of having unbiased or rational thought when it comes to anything regarding Trump, especially if it's bad. As you saw in his very first post, he bought into it hook, line, and sinker, and then went on a flurry of research to convince himself it was true. All the while, having no thought to the current asshole in chief that goes against the Constitution continually, an asshole that he supports. You really couldn't make this shit up if you tried.

 

[OldFlame]

It actually was reported. It was actually current. We have seen members from the left and the right use Raw Story as a supporting link. The thread is valid for discussion and did generate valid discussion, research and reporting by multiple users. It actually could turn out to be a line pursued by team trump after the 30th, not that it would be effective.

The op was a lie, and you have zero business moderating when you clearly have an issue with being unbiased when it comes to Trump, which makes up 80% of the content on this board.

 

[Care4all]

In looking for the story from another source, I found an inteview with the Colorodo Secretary of state talking about the citizen civil lawsuit to keep trump off the ballot in Colorado, on the proposed arguement, he participated in an insurrection. She did not speak much to the merrits, but mainly the concept and right of the six to file the lawsuit. She did not repeat the claim, that supposedly his lawyers wanted to argue, he had no duty to follow and support the constitution.
In another article from Associated Press, dated Sept. 22, a judge in Colorodo ruled trump could not threaten or intimidate witness or participants that might be in the trial. The only other article, I found was from Courthouse News, today, in Colorado, Second Judicial District Judge Sarah Wallace ruled against Trump's Sept 22nd, motion to dismiss.

In the motion to dismiss, team trump was arguing 1. That all he did and said was protected speech. 2. This should be decided in Congress, not state court.

It should be noted, by me, that the states run the elections, not Congress, so Colorado is within its rights to hear the case.

The judge ruled the case would go forward and be heard, with a date set for Oct 30.

Again, no mention of Trump, through his lawyers, arguing he had no duty to support and defend the constitution.

Denver judge SLAPPs down Trump motion to dismiss ballot challenge

Polls put former President Donald Trump as a front-runner in the 2024 GOP primary, but a group of party members question whether he's eligible for office while facing criminal charges in several courts.

www.courthousenews.com

For the moment, I have to call bullshit on Trump lawyers arguing for Trump, he had no duty to follow and support the constitution. Something like that would have been Big News, no matter who was being bombed and terrorized.

Here's a link talking about it....

Trump claims the insurrection clause 'does not apply' to the president

Trump's latest argument seeks to stake out new territory as to what, exactly the insurrection clause demands in a broader constitutional context, as well as who it demands such things from.

lawandcrime.com

It gives the Trump team court defense.....

 

[Care4all]

The op was a lie, and you have zero business moderating when you clearly have an issue with being unbiased when it comes to Trump, which makes up 80% of the content on this board.

the op is not a lie.....