Donald Trump says he never swore oath "to support the Constitution"
Donald Trump says he never swore oath "to support the Constitution"
The former president's lawyers argue why he cannot be barred from running for office for allegedly violating the 14th Amendment.
Next, he’s going to say that he did repeat the oath, but he had his fingers crossed so it doesn’t count.
The Narcissist's Prayer:
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.Damn. Well, you win this time, Mr Donald, but we'll get you in the end!
https://youtu.be/ohgTEk9h1kc?si=RP3DiYmUxUooBnPH
It took me seconds to find video proving this is a lie.
They are arguing that the oath doesn't include the word "support" not that he didn't take the oath. Not saying it's a good argument but that's what they are actually arguing.
"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."
Emphasis mine.
Ahh semantics. "Lawyers hate this one trick"
Their argument is that because he did not use the exact word "support" in respect to the Constitution, that he is not able to be excluded from holding office in the US even if he did commit seditious acts. He is saying that his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" is entirely different than an oath to "support" it. It's nonsense, but one judge (in Colorado, I believe?)
has already provided legitimacy to that argument, so... the stupid argument now has judicial precedent.Edit: Correcting my mistake about the Judge's verdict. The judge did not uphold the argument that the Presidential oath was not to "support" the Constitution. Instead, the Judge was convinced by Trump's team that the President is not an "officer of the United States". Therefore, Trump took no oath as an Officer of the United States, and, thus, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (which exclude someone who swore such an oath, who then incites an insurrection from holding federal or state office) simply doesn't apply to someone who has only sworn an oath as President.
Faknews AI you can tell that's Alec Baldwin
"Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to 'support' the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President," Blue wrote.
By the same token, the Second Amendment doesn't say "guns".
We're all dumber for having this guy around
Remember that a large portion of the country still rallies behind this person. It's a sad state of affairs.
And we all used to pretty much universally agree he's a piece of shit. Like every villain in every 80s and 90s movie is overtly based on him.
Turns out, all you have to do is lie about your financial history in the intro of a popular reality TV show in order to 100% reverse that. Man, people (in general) are fucking stupid.
Republicans: “let’s vote for this guy”
I feel like the founders felt that the voting base would not possibly be dumb enough to support an individual like Trump. They put in appropriate guardrails but never thought such a large portion of the country would push so hard towards fascism.
I feel like the founders felt that the voting base would not possibly be dumb enough to support an individual like Trump.
That's actually one of the reasons we have an electoral college (though not the only reason, and I'm not claiming that any of those reasons are necessarily good, just that it was part of the justification for why our system is the way it is,) some of the founders were afraid the average voter might be too stupid to choose a decent president.
Of course a couple centuries of fucking with the system has made it backfire on us. If it worked the way it was supposed to, we would have had a bunch of faithless electors take a look at who the people of their state voted for and say "hell no."
"I don't stand behind anything." - Trump in the oval office, 2017
So, yeah.
Yes, you did.We saw it. It was recorded. Stop lying, goddamn you.
The sophistry here is that the presidential oath doesn't contain the word "support". It's complete bullshit but you never know with this SCOTUS.
Nuh-uh! That's just lamestream media propaganda! /s
Why is this comment so heavily upvoted? His argument is not that he never took an oath, but that the wording of it was not to "support."
It still a stupid argument as far as I'm concerned, although it may be a good legal one, but its clear you didn't even bother to read the argument, yet are very confident in your ignorance.
These are exactly the type of comments that should be down voted.
Trymps arguments are moving goal posts, he's a narcissist. For the past 6 years we have all given him the benefit of the doubt and America and the rest of the world have been debating what he really means at every tweet and followed the narrative that HE wanted us to follow. Had we all taken OPs approach earlier and more often this guy would be in an old people's house where he belongs, bragging with incontinent people about passing the men, woman camera TV test.
We should have called a funking liar and a demented that cannot articulate a point instead of talking to each other about what his argument was. This is staring from the media and down to individuals.
Remember if your uncle behaved like this at thanksgiving dinner you'd have him checked.
The argument that I've heard from some prominent lawyers is that "preserve, protect and defend" was intended by the framers to be a stronger oath than "support" and that it should be construed as including "support". Hopefully the courts agree with that reasoning.
Even if not stronger per se, surely if I said I was going to "protect" you, we would agree that I am "supporting" you. It's like saying I only promised to make you wealthier, not pay you. They are not literally the same word but paying someone is a way to make them wealthier.
I can't comprehend how any American who calls himself a patriot can vote for this traitorous pig.
Super easy: if you feel strongly enough, words don't need to mean anything. There, all fixed!
Because they're confusing "patriot" for "nationalist."
Bam. Perjury.
What a simpler time when we could all joke about Clinton arguing about the meaning of the word “is”.
At least then we could argue about a lie being a lie, now it's all "he never said that (literally 4 seconds ago), if he did it's fine, if you're mad that's your fault, he never said it anyway. I like that he said it."
thing about that is, clinton actually had a point. he said "there is nothing going on between [he and monica lewinsky]" when asked, and was then accused of perjury. He argued that "is" meant "is", and because at the time of asking he and lewinsky didn't have an ongoing relationship he didn't lie.
Bullshit, traitor. Lock him up.
I mean i believe that he doesn't remember.
It was the accountant's fault!
I hope we see this in the political ads next year
If the Founders wanted Presidents removed for committing Insurrection they would have EXPLICITLY stated it in the Constitution! Just like how the EXPLICITLY allow people to own AR15 guns and how it's EXPLICITLY allowed to shoot up schools with those guns!
Harry & Lloyd, Laurel & Hardy, Trump & The Republican Party.
Not sure which one's the dumbest.
The fact that you included Laurel & Hardy shows how big their genius was. They mastered the dumb in a way that is still influencing to this day!
It's cool guys, he crossed his toes before he took the stand so it didn't count.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ohgTEk9h1kc&t=36 wtf did I just watch then? Is this some weird DnD timeline, where you can roll to disbelieve?
Why Are you deaf
The Presidental Oath does not say "to Support the Constitution"Why Are you deaf
I don't know why I'm deaf, you insensitive clod!
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.
I mean, the word "support" doesn't appear there, although it's a stretch to say that "Preserve, protect, and defend" doesn't imply "support" also.
It says "to the best of my ability" and since he has no abilities, he has no responsibility to do anything.
Also a stretch to say he did "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution.
This is how fucking annoying these asshats are. They will argue the technicality over the word "support" while ignoring his very real failures.
Exactly. Just because the Founding Fathers decided to play around with the Thesaurus, doesn't mean the president should be able to attempt to coup his own country and then run again the very next election
In US law, implying something has no weight. It has to be explicitly spelled out. You know, because of the implication...
It's past time for the states to remove Traitor Trump from the ballot.
From the outside it's absolutely crazy that there is a good chance that he's gonna be president again.
From the inside it's enough to cause panic attacks.
Yeah well he didn't swear to read the Constitution either, so it's okay if he doesn't support it /s
It's actually rather painfully clear he's never read it anyway.
This is just some inane bullshit dancing around language.
Yeah, he was crossing his fingers behind his back. Like every other time when he opens his mouth.
It was the disclaimer. It was in his pocket the entire time.
There weren't enough people as his inauguration to remember.
That's a roundabout and somewhat disingenuous interpretation of their defense. They're arguing that the presidency doesn't fall under "officer of the United States" which is obviously weak as hell, but people get weird when it comes to interpreting the constitution. They aren't trying to claim he didn't take an oath.
Did you not read the article?
and that Trump technically did not swear an oath to "support" the Constitution. Instead, during his January 2017 inauguration, Trump swore to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution during his role as president.
You’re talking about the reasoning in the ruling by the district judge. This article is about trump’s argument in filings to the appeals court.
sigh I guess preserve, protect and defend is not supporting.
We have a person that likely will be the primary candidate for the GOP, that is saying he doesn't support the constitution and all of those "patriots" will still vote for him.
Weak? It's non-existent. It's an imaginary "argument". The word "officer" has always been defined (in every English language dictionary) as "one who holds office". That is what the word literally means. Their "argument" must therefore be predicated on the idea that a president does not "hold office".
I want him banned from office, but no, it's not non-existent.
They did actually argue that the Presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" is not the same as an oath to "support" the Constitution.
From the article: "In their appeal against the Colorado lawsuit, Trump's lawyers reiterated that the wording of Section Three does not apply to people running for president and that Trump technically did not swear an oath to "support" the Constitution. Instead, during his January 2017 inauguration, Trump swore to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution during his role as president."
all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution
I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir but it seems pretty clear that as president (holding the highest executive office) he is bound by oath to support the constitution.
Wasn't Clinton impeached for something similar, like the definition of the word 'is?'
Still the dumbest argument.
of course he does not, the constitution would restrict his power and as we all know, nobody can restrict lord trumps power, how could he rule over us otherwise?
Did he not have to take an Oath of Office?
He had his fingers crossed.
He is the cuntstitution
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Donald Trump's legal team has argued against an attempt to have him thrown off the presidential ballot in Colorado in 2024 by suggesting the wording of the U.S. Constitution's insurrection clause does not apply to him.
The Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal on a lawsuit filed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) watchdog group and Republican figures, who argue that Trump's actions on January 6, 2021, violated Section Three of the 14th Amendment and therefore he should be prohibited from running for the White House again.
In a previous ruling, lower court judge Sarah B. Wallace said that Trump had "engaged in insurrection" on January 6, the day of the Capitol riot, but should remain on Colorado's primary ballot as the wording of the 14th Amendment does not specifically mention preventing people from running for the presidency.
"Wow in a legal proceeding Trump is now arguing he didn't violate the 14th Amendment by inciting the Jan 6 insurrection because he 'never took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.'
This treacherous criminal is head of the Republican Party," Democratic New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell posted on X, formerly Twitter.
Oral arguments are scheduled to begin on December 6 after the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal on Wallace's decision that Trump can remain on the ballot in the Centennial State.
The original article contains 706 words, the summary contains 232 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Downvoting since it missed the most important piece of the article. This thing just randomly drops paragraphs and I'd actually prefer if it just posted the whole thing and saved 0%.
