Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution as president

[jbrownson0831]

Please provide credible proof of your claims - with context.

Well Lakookta you have another Dimbot fan looks like.....

 

[jbrownson0831]

Okay, so you're lying. Thanks for playing...

Poor Lakookta....only one buddy.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Trump is a treasonous enemy of the Constitution and unfit to hold any public office.

Wrong again Herr Goebbels....

 

[jbrownson0831]

Trump began his ‘presidency’ lying under oath.

No he didn't Mrs Jones......stop lying.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Wrong again Herr Goebbels....

Trump is an enemy of democrats as are all rational persons.

 

[Lesh]

So Trump’s lawyers are claiming there’s a difference between “support” and “protect and defend”?

And he pays these guys?

 

[jbrownson0831]

It was a lie.

And the bias isn't even overwhelming it's complete and total.

 

[OldFlame]

People interpret things on here all the time, and it the interpretation is somewhat understandable, but not exactly the same, as we are talking about legalities, not rhetoric. It is an interpretation that would easily fly on the courthouse steps, but not in front of a judge.
In this case, even the exact legalities of what team trump said were rightfully rejected by the judge and the case was bound over to trial on October 30, and there is no arguing with that, as it is legal fact.

That op was pure rhetoric and written in a way to mislead anyone who came in and read it. Even your first idiotic response to it was to go on a tirade about the evil Trump. Seriously, who do you think you're fooling?

 

[YoursTruly]

It sounds like another democrat lie.

I'm thinking the same thing. And I don't even support Trump.

 

[Nostra]

In looking for the story from another source, I found an inteview with the Colorodo Secretary of state talking about the citizen civil lawsuit to keep trump off the ballot in Colorado, on the proposed arguement, he participated in an insurrection. She did not speak much to the merrits, but mainly the concept and right of the six to file the lawsuit. She did not repeat the claim, that supposedly his lawyers wanted to argue, he had no duty to follow and support the constitution.
In another article from Associated Press, dated Sept. 22, a judge in Colorodo ruled trump could not threaten or intimidate witness or participants that might be in the trial. The only other article, I found was from Courthouse News, today, in Colorado, Second Judicial District Judge Sarah Wallace ruled against Trump's Sept 22nd, motion to dismiss.

In the motion to dismiss, team trump was arguing 1. That all he did and said was protected speech. 2. This should be decided in Congress, not state court.

It should be noted, by me, that the states run the elections, not Congress, so Colorado is within its rights to hear the case.

The judge ruled the case would go forward and be heard, with a date set for Oct 30.

Again, no mention of Trump, through his lawyers, arguing he had no duty to support and defend the constitution.

Denver judge SLAPPs down Trump motion to dismiss ballot challenge

Polls put former President Donald Trump as a front-runner in the 2024 GOP primary, but a group of party members question whether he's eligible for office while facing criminal charges in several courts.

www.courthousenews.com

For the moment, I have to call bullshit on Trump lawyers arguing for Trump, he had no duty to follow and support the constitution. Something like that would have been Big News, no matter who was being bombed and terrorized.

So, fake news and the OP is a lying sack.

Got it.

 

[YoursTruly]

"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," said the filing by Trump's attorneys. "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."

If any of this is true, then Trumps attorney's are just using semantics as an argument. You can preserve, protect and defend' it without supporting it. But the chances of not supporting it, while preserving, protecting and defending it, is almost impossible.

This is like Bill Clintons "define sex" line.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I'm thinking the same thing. And I don't even support Trump.

In the last two days democrats have gone insane with Trump tales. None of them can be believed.

 

[YoursTruly]

In the last two days democrats have gone insane with Trump tales. None of them can be believed.

You should see things from my perspective.

I don't believe ANYTHING Trump says, nor the democrats. Both sides have gotten so good at lying, it's almost impossible to find the truth. Especially with so much fake news and misinformation.

 

[White 6]

That op was pure rhetoric and written in a way to mislead anyone who came in and read it. Even your first idiotic response to it was to go on a tirade about the evil Trump. Seriously, who do you think you're fooling?

Fooling in what way? I have never made any pretence of thinking well of trump, as a person, a president, a husband, a Christian, a citizen of the United States or much of a human being. In all the rest of my posts in that thread, I came to the conclusion, what team trump was trying to claim, certainly did not speak well for the legal team or trump, but due to it being legalese simply did not equal the basic message of the OP or the Raw Story quote. So, I take shit from the left for not condemning completely and agreeing and the left for failing to agree it there was no basis for the article. Fk you people. Attack or disagreement from both sides of the partisan divide, usually mean one is likely standing on the correct point. Recognizing the partisans and rattling not totally from fact and saying so is a defining characteristic of an independent. Anybody doesn't like it, they don't have to read.

 

[White 6]

So, fake news and the OP is a lying sack.

Got it.

Well, it ain't exactly down the straight and now.

 

[OldFlame]

Fooling in what way? I have never made any presence of thinking well of trump, as a person, a president, a husband, a Christian, a citizen of the United States or much of a human being. In all the rest of my posts in that thread, I came to the conclusion, what team trump was trying to claim, certainly did not speak well for the legal team or trump, but due to it being legalese simply did not equal the basic message of the OP or the Raw Story quote. So, I take shit from the left for not condemning completely and agreeing and the left for failing to agree it there was no basis for the article. Fk you people. Attack or disagreement from both sides of the partisan divide, usually mean one is likely standing on the correct point. Recognizing the partisans and rattling not totally from fact and saying so is a defining characteristic of an independent. Anybody doesn't like it, they don't have to read.

Go look at your first post in this thread and tell me you didn't react to what you thought the op said. You're fooling no one.

 

[Nostra]

Well, it ain't exactly down the straight and now.

So, fake news and the OP is a lying sack.

Got it.

 

[White 6]

Go look at your first post in this thread and tell me you didn't react to what you thought the op said. You're fooling no one.

Look, old Burnout. I read, gave reaction read other posts looking for confirmation from other sources and did the research. Trump's position sucks. The judge rejected it, but it doesn't mean the exactly same thing as the raw story headline stated, as it was not a quote, only an interpretation of the Trump position. If you have a problem, you can come to Tennessee and kiss my ass, but that is about your only option.

 

[OldFlame]

Look, old Burnout. I read, gave reaction read other posts looking for confirmation from other sources and did the research. Trump's position sucks. The judge rejected it, but it doesn't mean the exactly same thing as the raw story headline stated, as it was not a quote, only an interpretation of the Trump position. If you have a problem, you can come to Tennessee and kiss my ass, but that is about your only option.

I don't expect you to see reason, you're not reasonable, you're completely biased. I'll call it out when I see it.

 

[bodecea]

Come on lefties, do you really believe this left wing spin that twisted statements by Trump lawyers? Things must be getting desperate out there.

Blaming the orange sexual abuser's lawyers now?