Trump's lawyers: He didn't take an oath to defend the Constitution

[Leo123]

More lawfare by the butt hurt Democrats desperate to get their made up ‘Orange Man Bad!

 

[SavannahMann]

It pays to be precise. If the charges against Trump include an allegation that he violated his oath to support the constitution, the entire complaint rests on whether there is, in fact, an oath to support the constitution. There is not. The complaint must fail.

Interesting. The only way to be President is to swear the oath of office. It’s in the Constitution. The text of the oath has been sworn to by every President.



So tell me again how there was no oath?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

More lawfare by the butt hurt Democrats desperate to get their made up ‘Orange Man Bad!

Another crybaby mental shart from a low IQ cultist.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

This story is dead 5 times over!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That wasnt an insurrection. Your hyperbole doesnt make it so. Sorry.

Wrong.

It was in fact an insurrection; worse, it was a rightwing domestic terrorist attack on America’s democracy – a treasonous attempt to overturn a presidential election, to disenfranchise millions of Americans, and to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.

 

[surada]

There is no oath to support the constitution.

Just to defend and protect the Constitution.

 

[rampart]

There is no oath to support the constitution.

whar does "uphold and protect" mean?

do YOU support the american constitution? do you support a traitor who does not support the constitution?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

whar does "uphold and protect" mean?

do YOU support the american constitution? do you support a traitor who does not suppoit rt the constitution?

It doesn't matter what it means. If there is no oath to support the constitution there cannot be a charge of failure to abide by an oath to support the constitution. These words are precise. They mean sonething.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

That makes no sense at all.
First of all, everyone know the presidential oath does pledge to uphold the Constitution above all else.
{...
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."[2]
...}
Second its that whether or not one took that pledge, has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not one would be banned from office for any sort of criminal activity.
But third is that clearly Trump in no way did anything remotely seditious, but the impeachments and indictments clearly ARE seditious in that they are an illegal attempt to thwart the will of the voters.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Wrong.

It was in fact an insurrection; worse, it was a rightwing domestic terrorist attack on America’s democracy – a treasonous attempt to overturn a presidential election, to disenfranchise millions of Americans, and to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.

Millions of Americans were already disenfranchised by a fraudulent election.

 

[Rigby5]

whar does "uphold and protect" mean?

do YOU support the american constitution? do you support a traitor who does not support the constitution?

The only people who do not support the Constitution are those attempting to prevent a presidential candidate from the ballot with illegal indictments.

 

[Rigby5]

It doesn't matter what it means. If there is no oath to support the constitution there cannot be a charge of failure to abide by an oath to support the constitution. These words are precise. They mean sonething.

The oath says to "preserve. protect, and defend" which to mean also implies "support".

But obviously anyone can be charged with sedition even if not sworn an oath, so that would be a ridiculous attempt by Trumps lawyers.
I doubt they are that stupid.
The correct attack is the simple fact a president is obligated by the Constitution to delay election certification if fraud is suspected.

 

[Rigby5]

this is trump's position in court. . it is bullshit, straight from trump's lawyers

I do not believe lawyers would say something that foolish.
They are implying only people who take an oath can be charged with sedition?
Even WWI draft protestors were charged with sedition.
(Although I personally believe it is illegal to charge anyone with sedition.)

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The oath says to "preserve. protect, and defend" which to mean also implies "support".

But obviously anyone can be charged with sedition even if not sworn an oath, so that would be a ridiculous attempt by Trumps lawyers.
I doubt they are that stupid.
The correct attack is the simple fact a president is obligated by the Constitution to delay election certification if fraud is suspected.

Don't imply. Anything can be implied. The only reason you and the rest of these dunderheads want to imply is because they fucked it up in the beginning. There is no presidential oath to support the constitution. Thar means no charge of failure to abide by an oath.

 

[rampart]

It doesn't matter what it means. If there is no oath to support the constitution there cannot be a charge of failure to abide by an oath to support the constitution. These words are precise. They mean sonething.

those words are precise. they mean "uphold and protect" or did that not mean "support" in 1789 or 1865 just as it does today?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

those words are precise. they mean "uphold and protect" or did that not mean "support" in 1789 or 1865 just as it does today?

If the writers had wanted to include support they would have said so. In any way this is sliced no one can be charged with violating an oath without the language purportedly violated. An oath is not implied.

 

[rampart]

I do not believe lawyers would say something that foolish.
They are implying only people who take an oath can be charged with sedition?
Even WWI draft protestors were charged with sedition.
(Although I personally believe it is illegal to charge anyone with sedition.)

the "oath to support" business is from paragraph 3 of the 14th amendment. EvilCat Breath is telling us that the "radical republicans" who wrote that amendment were either idiots who never read article 2 or prophets who foretold that in the end times god's anointed one, trump, would need the technicality to escape crucifixion.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

the "oath to support" business is from paragraph 3 of the 14th amendment. EvilCat Breath is telling us that the "radical republicans" who wrote that amendment were either idiots who never read article 2 or prophets who foretold that in the end times god's anointed one, trump, would need the technicality to escape crucifixion.

All that's needed to cure the technicality is to charge Trump with appropriate violations of the oath that he did take. Unless there were no such violations.

 

[rampart]

th

The only people who do not support the Constitution are those attempting to prevent a presidential candidate from the ballot with illegal indictments.

there is no constitutional exception for "presidential candidate," or al capone would have run against fdr.

 

[cnm]

It pays to be precise. If the charges against Trump include an allegation that he violated his oath to support the constitution, the entire complaint rests on whether there is, in fact, an oath to support the constitution. There is not. The complaint must fail.

Did not disappoint.