Trump's J6 legal defense: he never swore to support the Constitution, despite taking an oath to protect it

Originally published at: Trump's Swearing-In Video Contradicts Legal Team's Claim



That, and he used two bibles. Which obviously cancel each other out. Perfectly cromulent.


this is insane.


Hey, it’s already worked once… Trump’s just taking his defense directly from his Colorado judge’s craven rationalization:

The judge also determined that the amendment’s provision technically applied to those who swear an oath to “support” the Constitution. The oath Trump took when he was sworn in after he was elected in 2016 was to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.


Here’s the video of Trump being sworn into the office of President in 2016, where he was recorded saying, “I do solemnly swear 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.”

The response of America’s most prominent grifter since 1980, as always: “who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”

And the MAGAts will once again take the first choice.

Trump’s lawyers seem to be making a technical legal argument based on the precise wording of laws and oaths.

While defense lawyers do this all the time, in this instance it’s a borderline SovCit incantation. This silly argument and its purpose (allowing him to run for President in the hope he can win and erase the charges) signals promising desperation on his part.


However, according to Trump’s legal team, “President Trump did not take an oath to ‘support the Constitution of the United States,’” so the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to him.

All I am hearing is Trump’s legal team admitting that their client engaged in insurrection. :thinking::smile::+1:


That judge found that he engaged in insurrection - as a finding of fact. Then that judge gave him a ‘win’ by saying he could still be on the ballot - effectively kicking it upstairs to the court of appeal for a finding on the law.

Because Trump ‘won’ he can’t appeal the finding that he did insurrection. Because the plaintiffs lost they can appeal that he is not allowed to be on the ballot, because of the finding of fact in the lower court case (which is now a fact and not an argument). The Appeal court (and ultimately the SC I’m sure) will have to decide if he is allowed on the ballot, given the FACT that he did insurrection.

At least that’s my reading on the judicial jujitsu of the Colorado judge.


You’re giving the judge a lot more benefit of the doubt than I’m willing to give. I see an obvious twisting of the intent of the law, in an effort to not have to properly deal with the fallout of striking Trump from the ballot.


So just a matter of time before the “And what is the constitution? It’s a piece of paper in the archives building. And Prezdent Trump was willing to send in the 33rd fighter wing to protect that piece of paper!” …argument is asserted…? (“Ah, but it isn’t paper, it’s parchment!”) Because of course, what’s written there is hardly germane (“well, except for a willful misreading around that ol’ 2nd amendment”)



I fucking hope so.


Same here. Things being what they are, I’m not saying he won’t be able to slime his way out of this one. However, as others have noted they’re effectively admitting he was a participant in the insurrection and are now trying to find ways to excuse it.


If only there was some evidence of Trump swearing to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.


But he didn’t say “support!” Magic words, y’know.


i wonder if that isn’t a misreading by the reporter. i searched for the word “support” in the decision, and here’s the important footnote

The Court agrees with Petitioners that an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution encompasses the same duties as an oath to support the Constitution. The Court, however, agrees with Intervenors that given there were two oaths in the Constitution at the time, the fact that Section Three references the oath that applies to Article VI, Clause 3 officers suggests that that is the class of officers to whom Section Three applies.

so the judge isn’t saying ■■■■■ isn’t supposed to support the constitution, she’s saying the specific words help distinguish the office of president from other offices. and that, along with other arguments, lead her to believe the amendment probably intended to exclude the president from the insurrection clause


I kinda see this as a distinction without a difference - it’s still using magic-words legal theory to create a tortured rationalization.


Next he’ll go full sovereign-citizen, and claim that the judge doesn’t have standing because she’s sitting down.


“Lookit that fringe on the flag! Admiralty law!”


no, i think that’s incorrect. she specifically excludes the argument of ■■■■■’s lawyers: she’s saying ■■■■■ did promise to support the constitution and that there’s no difference in meaning between the two oaths

( and if you skim it, you’ll see the judge sees both sides of the argument about whether the amendment applies to the office of president. she made her decision, but the doubt is palpable. )