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!
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.
I feel like if that's your argument, you absolutely have no business being president.
He didn't and doesn't.
I wonder what their definition of "support" is and how they plan on using that as a defense.
Or what their definition of “defend” is, and how they plan to use that as support.
Well. I mean he didn't literally carry the constitution around. So he wasn't supporting it that way.
The Constitution wasn't a foetus. Republican support ends at birth.
Looks like the founding fathers fucked up, and the writers of the 14th amendment didn't catch it.
The oaths of office for the Senate, House of Representatives, Supreme Court, and all civil and military offices except the presidency include the requirement to "support" the constitution. Even the vice presidency requires it, but the presidency does not.
I don't think this distinction is particularly relevant. I don't think the "previously swore an oath" requirement is particularly relevant. The "insurrection" part should disqualify him, and the Colorado judge ruled that he did, in fact, commit insurrection.
I am curious whether he ever made a campaign speech or other public statement about the constitution, and used the word "support".
"I am curious whether he ever made a campaign speech or other public statement about the constitution, and used the word “support”."
Knowing him it was probably more like "I love our Beautiful Constitution™ really, very good stuff, Great Constitution. I would touch that Constitution, you know they let you when you're famous, that Constitution is the best they say, the best Constitution in the world (I don't support it) the Democrats though, they want to take Our Beautiful Constitution™ and make it Communism! Venezuela and eating rats! It's what Disgusting Democrats love to do. Anyway, such a Beautiful Constitution, really the best, maybe the best of all time they say. Never supported it though."
I just thought of something. Every officer of the US except the president is obligated to take an oath to support the constitution. 5 USC §3331
Read the 14th amendment again:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Trump was found to be an insurrectionist.
Every member of the electoral college is obligated to take an oath to support the constitution. Any of them providing "aid and comfort" to insurrectionist Trump is barred from serving as an elector. They can't cast a vote for Trump, because doing so would be giving him "aid or comfort".
So even if Trump can't be barred from service, all of his electors can be. With no members of the electoral college able to vote for him, he can't be elected.
By the same argument, if he is elected, any state or federal civil or military officer who follows his orders would be giving "aid or comfort", immediately disqualifying themself from their position.
The judge also found that the "Office of President of the United States" was not an office of the United States... so yeah...
"Elector of the President or Vice President" is an office. Even if this ruling means that Trump himself can't be disqualified from running, his electors (as in: the electoral college) can be disqualified for providing "aid or comfort" to an insurrectionist by voting for him.
deleted by creator
Yeah it's pretty wild. Someone else linked the full ruling below, but the relevant parts are:
The Court holds there is scant direct evidence regarding whether the
Presidency is one of the positions subject to disqualification. The disqualified offices
enumerated are presented in descending order starting with the highest levels of the
federal government and descending downwards. It starts with “Senator or
Representatives in Congress,” then lists “electors of President and Vice President,” and
then ends with the catchall phrase of “any office, civil or military, under the United
States, or under any State.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 3.
I despise Trump and think he absolutely should be disqualified from holding office (including the presidency) - AT A MINIMUM. I'm also far more a "spirit of the law" advocate than "letter of the law". With that said, the findings of the judge are perfectly reasonable in full context. The letter of the law clearly omits in its enumerations the office of the presidency. For this to have been merely a mistake would be so monumental an oversight as to make it highly unlikely. If there had been no listing of included offices, then the catch-all portion of that language would perhaps inarguably include the presidency (because of course it SHOULD be included). Thus, this omission also strikes at the spirit of the law. What the judge is saying is that the fact this list is included, yet fails to include so obvious an office one would imagine should be included (the presidency), indicates - absent compelling evidence to the contrary - that the Founders intended it to be omitted. In other words, absent said evidence, neither the letter of the law nor the spirit of the law suggest the presidency was meant to be included.
This is a circumstance in which I would argue the judge ain't wrong and if we're not happy with that, then the law needs to be changed.
I see your point, but can't help thinking this from a layman's perspective. If I were going out of town for the weekend and left a note for my kids that said "While I'm away, no keggers, ragers or any other types of parties at the house." Then I come back to find out they held a massive rave that destroyed my house, and they say "obviously a rave wasn't included when you said any other types of parties. A rave is bigger than a kegger or a rager." I would be more than a bit upset.
It's the Air Bud loophole for fascists.
I would much rather have a golden retriever as my president
TIL that in basketball it's legal to head the ball like in soccer
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.
The fuck Simon Says argument is this? Are we in kindergarten?
I'm no lawyer, but I swear 99% of law is laughable semantics like this.
America does produce 4x the lawyers expected per capita, and they've gotta do something to get paid, so ... yeah.
Frankly, there's a lot of it that's creative reading of something so you don't have to spend 6 months fighting an even worse battle. Also, turns out six people can look at the exact same sentence and come away with six different interpretations, so there's a good deal of legitimate disagreement on meaning.
The judge said that the goverment didn't have the power to keep him off a primary ballot, since that's not an election to an office. The actual election is up in the air
That's not quite correct. The judge specifically concluded that the Section 3 clause of the 14th Amendment that would exclude someone from holding office after inciting an insurrection simply did not matter for the presidency. They were somehow convinced that the President is not an "officer of the United States", so Section 3 did not apply. I genuinely don't understand how they were convinced of that. But they basically concluded that a sitting or former Congressman, Judge or soldier who commits insurrection can never hold office again without Congressional pardon, but someone who has only held the office of President like Trump can commit insurrection and not face similar consequences. Like that makes any sense.
It may not matter for the presidency, but it absolutely matters for the Electoral College. Read the 14th amendment again: even if it doesn't apply to the president himself, it explicitly applies to the electors of the president.
Trump was declared an insurrectionist. If an electoral vote for Trump can be considered giving him "aid or comfort", any elector intending to vote for him is unqualified to serve as an elector.
You're missing up the cases, the one in Minnesota is the one where they kept him on the Primary ballot, for the reason you cited
Technically, we don't elect the president. We elect the electors who elect the president. Those electors are required to swear an oath, under 5 USC §3331.
Any elector who intends to vote for Trump is giving "aid or comfort" to a known insurrectionist, which disqualifies them from serving as an elector. They can only be an elector until they try to cast a vote for insurrectionist Trump.
"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".
Every American has a right to have one of these:
I'm sure that would paws the conversation...
Walk down 5th Ave with a good ole fashioned saber and see what happens 🫠
Guns happen?
Yup. 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.
Of course they didn't. They wrote all this assuming that wealthy white landowning men would continue to be the only ones who could vote. Populism was not something on their radar.
Preventing 'mob rule' was on their minds however.
And to that end, they specified that Presidential Electors should be appointed by state legislatures. They didn't go so far as to prohibit choosing them by popular vote (because they left it up to the legislatures to decide), but having the People choose the President is clearly not what they had in mind. What they were actually going for was something more similar to the way parliamentary systems choose the Prime Minister (by vote of the parliament itself). The only difference is that they wanted the state legislatures to choose instead of Congress, for added Federalism. (That's also why Electors are a thing, by the way: they couldn't have 1 vote per state legislator because different states had legislatures of different sizes and they needed to make it fair between states, so instead they had each state legislature choose a number of Electors equal to that state's representation in Congress.)
Same with Senators, too: those were supposed to be appointed by the state legislatures instead of the People directly for basically the same reason.
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.
Not sure how support doesn't fall under "preserve, protect and defend" in every way that's meaningful
That is the sophistry part. It clearly was intended to be a higher level of oath that included the lower one. Watch: SCOTUS will say that the president actually doesn't have to support the Constitution.
Textualism at it's finest
I mean, a Colorado court just decided that he did engage in an insurrection, and the phrase "office of the president" appears all over all sorts of documentation, but the guy who holds the office of the president is not an officer, so he's allowed to commit treason and still run for president
Pretty much. Exploiting the loopholes.
not even a loophole. they're just pretending the law is different than it is because they want it to be
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.
Whos been giving this guy the benefit of the doubt for 6 years now? I'm all for calling him a liar and a rambling idiot, which he is.
But I don't see what this has to do with anything. Trump didn't make the argument that he never took an oath, but that he never took an oath to "defend." This is not debating what he really means, it's just accepting the facts. You, like trump, might ignore reality to make the point you want, but I can't do that. Sorry.
What he really means doesn't matter, and he will keep changing it as you let him drag you in the mud.
Sorry we* wouldn't have accepted a statement like this from Obama or even George w. And that's the way it should be.
And by we I mean society, the media, his peers anyone. While you sit proudly on your high horse fascism takes over.
Holy shit this is amazing. I'm just pointing out what his actual argument is, like quite literally what his argument is in court.
I'm not saying we should accept it. You're stuck in black and white thinking, and so because I point out that the facts contradict something that someone you agree with is claiming, then I must be drawing the exact opposite conclusion.
But, just like trump, it appears you don't want to facts to get in the way of the narrative. If that high horse is basing opinions on facts and reality, then I'll proudly sit tall upon it.
I’m not saying we should accept it.
Problem solved. Let's move on shall we.
I disagree that the problem was solved, because this was never the problem to begin with, but I'm okay moving on as well.
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.
Straight up, if you're protecting something it should be obvious that you support it
Otherwise why would you protect it?
For example: I protect personal privacy because I support the idea of personal privacy
Counter example: "I will protect your right to practice religion, even if I don't support religion."
There are some things worth protecting, regardless if you support it or not.
But you're not protecting the religion, you're protecting the right to practice it, which it seems like you also support. It would be strange to say "I will protect your religion" if you don't support any aspect of said religion.
Maybe, maybe not. Military and police are two examples of groups that frequently defend/protect people/ideas that individual members don't support. Doctors and lawyers are legally required to protect their patients/clients within the confines of their practices, but they certainly don't have to support their patients/clients.
This may seem like splitting hairs, but I honestly don't think it is:
Military and police are groups that defend/protect their country, it's laws and it's fundamental principles, which they most likely support. Just like your previous argument: Police can defend and support the right to protest, without supporting the content of the protest. This extends to pretty much anything.
Doctors and lawyers can support a universal right to life, good health, and a just trial, and by supporting those things, it makes sense to help, defend and protect a patient / client regardless of their background, practices or actions.
In both cases, we could make an exemption for police / military / doctors / lawyers that are there just for the cash. At that point, it's basically, "I'm defending / protecting because I support me getting paid." and the whole argument is kind of moot.
Respectfully disagree. You're talking about institutions that, frankly, a good chunk of these professions just do not support. Like there is a solid contingent of lawyers that fundamentally disagree with just outcomes since anything can be spun. You'll find doctors everywhere that don't support a universal right to life. Police, to be blunt, frequently and demonstrably do not give a shit about the laws they purport to uphold. Military have some brainwashing issues you have to take into account, but frequently their personal beliefs clash with their training.
In all of these, the professional is legally required to defend certain principles that they might not personally support. I guess they professionally have to support them too, but at that point we've gone full circle
I see your point, which is kind of what I meant about the exception for people that are "just there for the gig". And I agree that when we take those into account, we have people who are legally required to defend/protect things they don't personally support. I also think taking those people into account is a different kind of discussion, because then we're talking about people taking an oath to uphold institutions they don't believe in for self-serving reasons. Whether or not someone can faithfully do that is an interesting discussion in itself.
My point, ultimately, is it's entirely possible to defend something you don't personally support, which in turn would depend on the definition of support. I think it's stupid and dangerous to entertain such alternative definitions in the broader context of the presidential oath of office. But it's not inherently silly for a defense attorney to make the argument.
You seem to be conflating two entirely separate things here. The idea of protesting in general and any individual protest about topic X are entirely different things, only related by the fact that the word protest is in both. Same for all your other examples - you can support a women's right to choose but be against abortion personally because those are two entirely different things that are logically compatible. This is not the case for defend/support the constitution itself, because there's only one meaning of the constitution in this context.
I can't comprehend how any American who calls himself a patriot can vote for this traitorous pig.
Because they're confusing "patriot" for "nationalist."
What a simpler time when we could all joke about Clinton arguing about the meaning of the word “is”.
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.
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."
Also back then a president getting a BJ was grounds for impeachment lol it really puts things into perspective
IIRC, he was impeached for lying about it, not actually doing it which IMHO, is less of an issue than cheating on your wife.
Great now im imagining a timeline where bill was 100% honest about it in a congressional hearing
"Yeah I solicited a blowjob from monica, im one of the most famous and wealthiest politicians of the era. Spoilers, all us rich politicians like to get away with stuff we shouldn't be doing, and the system is rigged to let us do it. So, what are you gonna do about it?"
Or even better:
"Hilldawg and I have been ethically non-monogamous since reading The Ethical Slut and I don't really understand why America should be brought into our personal business. Monica is regularly our third and we both filed paperwork with White House HR before any physical interaction to avoid suspicion of bias towards her job performance"
I mean if it's my dream timeline, I wanna make it fun.
Photos from early in their relationship definitely had the requisite amount of fuck-mojo
The young Clintons could both get it, ngl
I've always wondered why they stuck it out. It seems they both have different ideas about physical intimacy, so why stay? Is money worth years of being unloved and unhappy. It makes no sense to me.
I don't think they're unloved. I genuinely think more politicians than you think have "arrangements." Even if not, infidelity happens, and I'm glad they worked through it
Cheating on his wife was reprehensible, but not really impeachment-worthy. Did it make any difference in his ability to govern? Nope. But sure, if it didn't happen in his second term, I'm not going to say you shouldn't have been allowed to consider it for whether or not you should vote for his reelection.
Cheating on your wife isn't illegal, because we don't live in a theocracy. That's between him and his wife and maybe a marriage counselor. It has nothing to do with his office.
I was listening a podcast abour history of philosophy and the guy spent like two chapters talking abouts the meaning of "is" is, because of a middle age philosophers called the grammaticals or something like that, that keep discussing the meaning of words.
What was this podcast?
History of philosophy without any gaps
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!
I hope we see this in the political ads next year
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.
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
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.
There weren't enough people as his inauguration to remember.
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.
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.
Oh my fuck. Aight well that's on me for assuming they were twisting the lawyer's argument to make him sound bad. I should've known he'd hang himself out to dry as usual.
It’s obviously an overly legalistic and technical argument that doesn’t speak to the merits. But it’s an appeals case, you have to argue legal errors not factual ones. I’m not a lawyer and have no idea how likely it is to succeed, but I think “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” is best legal practice, so I don’t see how this filing hangs him out to dry. It’s bad optics but I don’t think is gonna matter to anyone.
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?'
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?
He is the cuntstitution
Did he not have to take an Oath of Office?
He had his fingers crossed.
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%.
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:
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.
Emphasis mine.
I feel like if that's your argument, you absolutely have no business being president.
He didn't and doesn't.
I wonder what their definition of "support" is and how they plan on using that as a defense.
Or what their definition of “defend” is, and how they plan to use that as support.
Well. I mean he didn't literally carry the constitution around. So he wasn't supporting it that way.
The Constitution wasn't a foetus. Republican support ends at birth.
Looks like the founding fathers fucked up, and the writers of the 14th amendment didn't catch it.
The oaths of office for the Senate, House of Representatives, Supreme Court, and all civil and military offices except the presidency include the requirement to "support" the constitution. Even the vice presidency requires it, but the presidency does not.
I don't think this distinction is particularly relevant. I don't think the "previously swore an oath" requirement is particularly relevant. The "insurrection" part should disqualify him, and the Colorado judge ruled that he did, in fact, commit insurrection.
I am curious whether he ever made a campaign speech or other public statement about the constitution, and used the word "support".
"I am curious whether he ever made a campaign speech or other public statement about the constitution, and used the word “support”."
Knowing him it was probably more like "I love our Beautiful Constitution™ really, very good stuff, Great Constitution. I would touch that Constitution, you know they let you when you're famous, that Constitution is the best they say, the best Constitution in the world (I don't support it) the Democrats though, they want to take Our Beautiful Constitution™ and make it Communism! Venezuela and eating rats! It's what Disgusting Democrats love to do. Anyway, such a Beautiful Constitution, really the best, maybe the best of all time they say. Never supported it though."
I just thought of something. Every officer of the US except the president is obligated to take an oath to support the constitution. 5 USC §3331
Read the 14th amendment again:
Trump was found to be an insurrectionist.
Every member of the electoral college is obligated to take an oath to support the constitution. Any of them providing "aid and comfort" to insurrectionist Trump is barred from serving as an elector. They can't cast a vote for Trump, because doing so would be giving him "aid or comfort".
So even if Trump can't be barred from service, all of his electors can be. With no members of the electoral college able to vote for him, he can't be elected.
By the same argument, if he is elected, any state or federal civil or military officer who follows his orders would be giving "aid or comfort", immediately disqualifying themself from their position.
The judge also found that the "Office of President of the United States" was not an office of the United States... so yeah...
"Elector of the President or Vice President" is an office. Even if this ruling means that Trump himself can't be disqualified from running, his electors (as in: the electoral college) can be disqualified for providing "aid or comfort" to an insurrectionist by voting for him.
deleted by creator
Yeah it's pretty wild. Someone else linked the full ruling below, but the relevant parts are:
Edit: Starting on page 95 of this doc if you want to read it yourself: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf
deleted by creator
I despise Trump and think he absolutely should be disqualified from holding office (including the presidency) - AT A MINIMUM. I'm also far more a "spirit of the law" advocate than "letter of the law". With that said, the findings of the judge are perfectly reasonable in full context. The letter of the law clearly omits in its enumerations the office of the presidency. For this to have been merely a mistake would be so monumental an oversight as to make it highly unlikely. If there had been no listing of included offices, then the catch-all portion of that language would perhaps inarguably include the presidency (because of course it SHOULD be included). Thus, this omission also strikes at the spirit of the law. What the judge is saying is that the fact this list is included, yet fails to include so obvious an office one would imagine should be included (the presidency), indicates - absent compelling evidence to the contrary - that the Founders intended it to be omitted. In other words, absent said evidence, neither the letter of the law nor the spirit of the law suggest the presidency was meant to be included.
This is a circumstance in which I would argue the judge ain't wrong and if we're not happy with that, then the law needs to be changed.
I see your point, but can't help thinking this from a layman's perspective. If I were going out of town for the weekend and left a note for my kids that said "While I'm away, no keggers, ragers or any other types of parties at the house." Then I come back to find out they held a massive rave that destroyed my house, and they say "obviously a rave wasn't included when you said any other types of parties. A rave is bigger than a kegger or a rager." I would be more than a bit upset.
It's the Air Bud loophole for fascists.
I would much rather have a golden retriever as my president
TIL that in basketball it's legal to head the ball like in soccer
I think it's only a foul if feet touch the ball
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.
The fuck Simon Says argument is this? Are we in kindergarten?
I'm no lawyer, but I swear 99% of law is laughable semantics like this.
America does produce 4x the lawyers expected per capita, and they've gotta do something to get paid, so ... yeah.
Frankly, there's a lot of it that's creative reading of something so you don't have to spend 6 months fighting an even worse battle. Also, turns out six people can look at the exact same sentence and come away with six different interpretations, so there's a good deal of legitimate disagreement on meaning.
The judge said that the goverment didn't have the power to keep him off a primary ballot, since that's not an election to an office. The actual election is up in the air
That's not quite correct. The judge specifically concluded that the Section 3 clause of the 14th Amendment that would exclude someone from holding office after inciting an insurrection simply did not matter for the presidency. They were somehow convinced that the President is not an "officer of the United States", so Section 3 did not apply. I genuinely don't understand how they were convinced of that. But they basically concluded that a sitting or former Congressman, Judge or soldier who commits insurrection can never hold office again without Congressional pardon, but someone who has only held the office of President like Trump can commit insurrection and not face similar consequences. Like that makes any sense.
It may not matter for the presidency, but it absolutely matters for the Electoral College. Read the 14th amendment again: even if it doesn't apply to the president himself, it explicitly applies to the electors of the president.
Trump was declared an insurrectionist. If an electoral vote for Trump can be considered giving him "aid or comfort", any elector intending to vote for him is unqualified to serve as an elector.
You're missing up the cases, the one in Minnesota is the one where they kept him on the Primary ballot, for the reason you cited
Technically, we don't elect the president. We elect the electors who elect the president. Those electors are required to swear an oath, under 5 USC §3331.
Any elector who intends to vote for Trump is giving "aid or comfort" to a known insurrectionist, which disqualifies them from serving as an elector. They can only be an elector until they try to cast a vote for insurrectionist Trump.
Faknews AI you can tell that's Alec Baldwin
By the same token, the Second Amendment doesn't say "guns".
Every American has a right to have one of these:
I'm sure that would paws the conversation...
Walk down 5th Ave with a good ole fashioned saber and see what happens 🫠
Guns happen?
Yup. 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.
Of course they didn't. They wrote all this assuming that wealthy white landowning men would continue to be the only ones who could vote. Populism was not something on their radar.
Preventing 'mob rule' was on their minds however.
And to that end, they specified that Presidential Electors should be appointed by state legislatures. They didn't go so far as to prohibit choosing them by popular vote (because they left it up to the legislatures to decide), but having the People choose the President is clearly not what they had in mind. What they were actually going for was something more similar to the way parliamentary systems choose the Prime Minister (by vote of the parliament itself). The only difference is that they wanted the state legislatures to choose instead of Congress, for added Federalism. (That's also why Electors are a thing, by the way: they couldn't have 1 vote per state legislator because different states had legislatures of different sizes and they needed to make it fair between states, so instead they had each state legislature choose a number of Electors equal to that state's representation in Congress.)
Same with Senators, too: those were supposed to be appointed by the state legislatures instead of the People directly for basically the same reason.
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.
Not sure how support doesn't fall under "preserve, protect and defend" in every way that's meaningful
That is the sophistry part. It clearly was intended to be a higher level of oath that included the lower one. Watch: SCOTUS will say that the president actually doesn't have to support the Constitution.
Textualism at it's finest
I mean, a Colorado court just decided that he did engage in an insurrection, and the phrase "office of the president" appears all over all sorts of documentation, but the guy who holds the office of the president is not an officer, so he's allowed to commit treason and still run for president
Pretty much. Exploiting the loopholes.
not even a loophole. they're just pretending the law is different than it is because they want it to be
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.
Whos been giving this guy the benefit of the doubt for 6 years now? I'm all for calling him a liar and a rambling idiot, which he is.
But I don't see what this has to do with anything. Trump didn't make the argument that he never took an oath, but that he never took an oath to "defend." This is not debating what he really means, it's just accepting the facts. You, like trump, might ignore reality to make the point you want, but I can't do that. Sorry.
What he really means doesn't matter, and he will keep changing it as you let him drag you in the mud.
Sorry we* wouldn't have accepted a statement like this from Obama or even George w. And that's the way it should be.
And by we I mean society, the media, his peers anyone. While you sit proudly on your high horse fascism takes over.
Holy shit this is amazing. I'm just pointing out what his actual argument is, like quite literally what his argument is in court.
I'm not saying we should accept it. You're stuck in black and white thinking, and so because I point out that the facts contradict something that someone you agree with is claiming, then I must be drawing the exact opposite conclusion.
But, just like trump, it appears you don't want to facts to get in the way of the narrative. If that high horse is basing opinions on facts and reality, then I'll proudly sit tall upon it.
Problem solved. Let's move on shall we.
I disagree that the problem was solved, because this was never the problem to begin with, but I'm okay moving on as well.
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.
Straight up, if you're protecting something it should be obvious that you support it
Otherwise why would you protect it?
For example: I protect personal privacy because I support the idea of personal privacy
Counter example: "I will protect your right to practice religion, even if I don't support religion."
There are some things worth protecting, regardless if you support it or not.
But you're not protecting the religion, you're protecting the right to practice it, which it seems like you also support. It would be strange to say "I will protect your religion" if you don't support any aspect of said religion.
Maybe, maybe not. Military and police are two examples of groups that frequently defend/protect people/ideas that individual members don't support. Doctors and lawyers are legally required to protect their patients/clients within the confines of their practices, but they certainly don't have to support their patients/clients.
This may seem like splitting hairs, but I honestly don't think it is:
Military and police are groups that defend/protect their country, it's laws and it's fundamental principles, which they most likely support. Just like your previous argument: Police can defend and support the right to protest, without supporting the content of the protest. This extends to pretty much anything.
Doctors and lawyers can support a universal right to life, good health, and a just trial, and by supporting those things, it makes sense to help, defend and protect a patient / client regardless of their background, practices or actions.
In both cases, we could make an exemption for police / military / doctors / lawyers that are there just for the cash. At that point, it's basically, "I'm defending / protecting because I support me getting paid." and the whole argument is kind of moot.
Respectfully disagree. You're talking about institutions that, frankly, a good chunk of these professions just do not support. Like there is a solid contingent of lawyers that fundamentally disagree with just outcomes since anything can be spun. You'll find doctors everywhere that don't support a universal right to life. Police, to be blunt, frequently and demonstrably do not give a shit about the laws they purport to uphold. Military have some brainwashing issues you have to take into account, but frequently their personal beliefs clash with their training.
In all of these, the professional is legally required to defend certain principles that they might not personally support. I guess they professionally have to support them too, but at that point we've gone full circle
I see your point, which is kind of what I meant about the exception for people that are "just there for the gig". And I agree that when we take those into account, we have people who are legally required to defend/protect things they don't personally support. I also think taking those people into account is a different kind of discussion, because then we're talking about people taking an oath to uphold institutions they don't believe in for self-serving reasons. Whether or not someone can faithfully do that is an interesting discussion in itself.
My point, ultimately, is it's entirely possible to defend something you don't personally support, which in turn would depend on the definition of support. I think it's stupid and dangerous to entertain such alternative definitions in the broader context of the presidential oath of office. But it's not inherently silly for a defense attorney to make the argument.
You seem to be conflating two entirely separate things here. The idea of protesting in general and any individual protest about topic X are entirely different things, only related by the fact that the word protest is in both. Same for all your other examples - you can support a women's right to choose but be against abortion personally because those are two entirely different things that are logically compatible. This is not the case for defend/support the constitution itself, because there's only one meaning of the constitution in this context.
I can't comprehend how any American who calls himself a patriot can vote for this traitorous pig.
Because they're confusing "patriot" for "nationalist."
What a simpler time when we could all joke about Clinton arguing about the meaning of the word “is”.
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.
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."
Also back then a president getting a BJ was grounds for impeachment lol it really puts things into perspective
IIRC, he was impeached for lying about it, not actually doing it which IMHO, is less of an issue than cheating on your wife.
Great now im imagining a timeline where bill was 100% honest about it in a congressional hearing "Yeah I solicited a blowjob from monica, im one of the most famous and wealthiest politicians of the era. Spoilers, all us rich politicians like to get away with stuff we shouldn't be doing, and the system is rigged to let us do it. So, what are you gonna do about it?"
Or even better:
"Hilldawg and I have been ethically non-monogamous since reading The Ethical Slut and I don't really understand why America should be brought into our personal business. Monica is regularly our third and we both filed paperwork with White House HR before any physical interaction to avoid suspicion of bias towards her job performance"
I mean if it's my dream timeline, I wanna make it fun.
Photos from early in their relationship definitely had the requisite amount of fuck-mojo
The young Clintons could both get it, ngl
I've always wondered why they stuck it out. It seems they both have different ideas about physical intimacy, so why stay? Is money worth years of being unloved and unhappy. It makes no sense to me.
I don't think they're unloved. I genuinely think more politicians than you think have "arrangements." Even if not, infidelity happens, and I'm glad they worked through it
Cheating on his wife was reprehensible, but not really impeachment-worthy. Did it make any difference in his ability to govern? Nope. But sure, if it didn't happen in his second term, I'm not going to say you shouldn't have been allowed to consider it for whether or not you should vote for his reelection.
Cheating on your wife isn't illegal, because we don't live in a theocracy. That's between him and his wife and maybe a marriage counselor. It has nothing to do with his office.
I was listening a podcast abour history of philosophy and the guy spent like two chapters talking abouts the meaning of "is" is, because of a middle age philosophers called the grammaticals or something like that, that keep discussing the meaning of words.
What was this podcast?
History of philosophy without any gaps
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!
I hope we see this in the political ads next year
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"
I don't know why I'm deaf, you insensitive clod!
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
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.
There weren't enough people as his inauguration to remember.
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.
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?
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.
Oh my fuck. Aight well that's on me for assuming they were twisting the lawyer's argument to make him sound bad. I should've known he'd hang himself out to dry as usual.
It’s obviously an overly legalistic and technical argument that doesn’t speak to the merits. But it’s an appeals case, you have to argue legal errors not factual ones. I’m not a lawyer and have no idea how likely it is to succeed, but I think “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” is best legal practice, so I don’t see how this filing hangs him out to dry. It’s bad optics but I don’t think is gonna matter to anyone.
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."
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?
He is the cuntstitution
Did he not have to take an Oath of Office?
He had his fingers crossed.
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%.