‘The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution — not to ‘support’ the Constitution,’ read a filing from the former president’s attorneys
    • @danl@lemmy.world
      2•1 year ago

      That’s not what he’s saying, and I’m not a Trumpet but the article’s pretty clear: Trump’s argument is that he swore to “preserve, protect and defend” but that elsewhere the constitution defines officers as people who swear to “support” so he’s not an “officer”.

      It’s stupid and nitpicky but not as clickbaity as the headline.

      • @FooBarrington@lemmy.worldOP
        13•1 year ago

        You do understand that as his legal representation, they are arguing for him, which makes their argument legally literally his argument?

              • @FooBarrington@lemmy.worldOP
                3•1 year ago

                The article is titled: “Donald Trump tells court he had no duty to ‘support’ the US Constitution”. You are claiming that this is incorrect, since Trump didn’t tell the court this. Why are you not complaining to the Independent?

                  • @FooBarrington@lemmy.worldOP
                    4•1 year ago

                    So for the 3rd time, can you quote TRUMP saying that? Yes or No? YOU specifically said above this was the PRESIDENT of the unitited states saying this, so where are you getting that quote? The article referenced the lawyers defense, not a direct quote of Trump.

                    Can you show me where I stated that it was a “direct quote of Trump”?

                    Also, why would I complain to the Independent? Your life may be so uneventful that you email authors of everything you disagree with and have questions about, sorry, I got more going on than that.

                    Your life is uneventful enough to keep complaining to me, so I figured you’d do the same to the professional news organization that actually did what you accuse me of doing.