Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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'.
I ran out of adjectives to describe this disaster a long time ago. I know Trump's followers -- and I do mean followers -- will defend this.
From the Colorado case:
In a filing made to the Colorado Supreme Court, lawyers for former President Donald Trump say that he never took an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States’’ and should therefore not be banned from the state’s presidential ballots in 2024 based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Trump legal news brief: Appeals court rules Trump can be sued for inciting Jan. 6 violence
A federal appeals court rules that civil lawsuits seeking damages against former President Donald Trump for his role in inciting the U.S. Capitol riot carried out by his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, can proceed.news.yahoo.com
I would ask the Trumpsters what they think of this, but I know they're fine with the idea.
I still can't believe this is happening here. In America. No way.
And the court ruled their argument to be semantic trifling. Support and preserve are synonyms, in this case.Well, technically the lawyers are correct, he didnt. As pathetic as that defense is. They should be ashamed of themselves. Trump as well, but we all know that wont happen.
Well, technically the lawyers are correct, he didnt. As pathetic as that defense is. They should be ashamed of themselves. Trump as well, but we all know that wont happen.
True. But the court was not impressed.Its legalese. Its been getting people out of trouble for a long time now.
Then it makes sense that you don't get it, since there clearly was one, on live television.Idk how the 14th is even being taken seriously. There was no insurrection.
Because it was a pathetic defense. An ex President using this as a defense for something.. SMHTrue. But the court was not impressed.
That wasnt an insurrection. Your hyperbole doesnt make it so. Sorry.Then it makes sense that you don't get it, since there clearly was one, on live television.
Right, the fact that a bunch of violent halfwits tried to overturn a free and fair election makes it so.That wasnt an insurrection. Your hyperbole doesnt make it so. Sorry.
Insurrection!Right, the fact that a bunch of violent halfwits tried to overturn a free and fair election makes it so.
You mean the ones charged with trespassing, instead of insurrection?I'm sure the fake laugh emojis are soothing, to the imprisoned insurrectionists.
This bizarre cherry picking won't help you. It was on live TV. Sorry.Insurrection!
View attachment 866608
View attachment 866609
Not to mention, its not even possible for citizens to "overturn an election" in this country. As I said, hyperbole.
Yep, the violent halfwits who tried to overturn a free and fair election.You mean the ones charged with trespassing, instead of insurrection?
Keep trying, bro.
That wasnt an insurrection. Your hyperbole doesnt make it so. Sorry.
A protest that got out of hand, is all it was. You cant even point out how it was insurrection, without being a dramatic 12 year old.This bizarre cherry picking won't help you. It was on live TV. Sorry.
Insurrection!
View attachment 866608
View attachment 866609
Not to mention, its not even possible for citizens to "overturn an election" in this country. As I said, hyperbole.
