Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 45,595
- 31,053
- 3,645
They never argued such nonsense.My quick search didn't turn up any court transcript of defense filings to actually see what was said, but no matter, watching court cases on YouTube its apparent that what these defense lawyers can dream up knows no bounds. I don't see it as any reflection on Trump himself, as these lawyers are in a league of their own. I reckon in this situation they hooked on "support" and what came to mind was 'if the word doesn't fit, you must acquit'.
They argued that section 3 of the 14th does not apply to the President because he's not an "officer." And the judge agreed and found in Trump's in this nonsense case.