LBRY Block Explorer

LBRY Claims • trump-tells-court-he-had-no-duty-to

d248cd3c46b226844db8ebd64c316925fb20052d

Published By
Created On
16 Oct 2023 20:14:14 UTC
Transaction ID
Cost
Safe for Work
Free
Yes
Trump Tells Court He Had No Duty To Protect The Constitution
The lawsuits seeking to remove Donald Trump from the ballot in certain states don't have a great chance of being successful, but that fact isn't stopping Donald Trump from making the worst possible defense in court. Trump's legal team told a judge in Colorado last week that he had no "duty" as president to actually honor the Constitution, which is not only false, but is possibly even an illegal argument to make. Obviously the president swears an oath to protect, honor, and upheld the Constitution, and telling a court otherwise is not going to bode well for his defense. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins discusses this.

Link - https://www.rawstory.com/trump-wont-support-constitution/

Check out our merch by visiting our store: https://www.buyrof.com/

Subscribe to our podcast: http://www.ROFPodcast.com

Become a member today!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYWIEbibRcZav6xMLo9qWWw/join

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!: https://www.patreon.com/TheRingofFire

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/theringoffire

Be sociable! Follow us on:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RingofFireRadio
Twitter: https://twitter.com/RingofFireMedia
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ringoffirenetwork/

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

According to Donald Trump, the former president of the United States, he had absolutely no, no, no, no responsibility as president to actually support the Constitution. And it's foolish to suggest that as president of the United States, he was supposed to support the Constitution. Only a fool would think such a thing. His lawyers say, Donald Trump's legal team actually made this argument in court in their attempt to get a lawsuit challenging his qualification to be on the ballot in the state of Colorado. Uh, Trump's lawyers were trying to get that dismissed. That lawsuit, of course, was filed by the citizens for responsibility and ethics in Washington. They're trying to argue that under the 14th Amendment, Donald Trump did in fact support an insurrection and therefore should not be on the ballot in the state of Colorado. Now, I have spoken my piece about these lawsuits in the past. I, I fully support them.

I believe they are right, but I do believe that our court system is so corrupted that they have no chance of being successful. Now, that was my thinking before I saw the idiotic legal defense of Donald Trump, and I'm gonna read you that in just a moment. And I gotta say, if this is the legal defense that Donald Trump is going with, then I may have been wrong about this corrupted court system protecting him and keeping him on the ballot, because I, I had forgotten, I guess, even though I talk about it all the time, still somehow forgot that he is represented by the most incompetent lawyers that the United States of America has ever seen in all of its existence. Because here is what his lawyers argued in their motion to the judge to dismiss the case.

The presidential oath, which the framers of the 14th Amendment, surely knew, requires the President to swear, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, not to support the Constitution, 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 14th Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President. So your legal argument is not to say that he didn't engage in an insurrection, let's just be clear. Okay? Because, because that to me is like 100% the defense here. Like, Hey, that wasn't an insurrection, so he did not engage in an insurrection. So you could use the 14th amendment. This is stupid. Let's everybody, let's go out and have lunch now. Mm-hmm. That's, you're not, you're not even saying he didn't do it, you are just saying

That he did it, but the law doesn't apply to him. So he is allowed to do it because the wording is different in the presidential oath as compared to the wording in the 14th Amendment. So you wanna quibble over semantics instead of actually saying that your client didn't do the thing that he is accused of doing. Yeah, that's, that's not gonna go very far at all. Because see, there's another word in there, and you mentioned this word twice. That word is preserve. Preserve.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZO5X7dIa2E
Author
Content Type
Unspecified
video/mp4
Language
English
Open in LBRY

More from the publisher

Controlling
VIDEO
REPUB
Controlling
VIDEO
GAVIN
Controlling
VIDEO
JOE B
Controlling
VIDEO
JIM J
Controlling
VIDEO
TED C
Controlling
VIDEO
TRUMP
Controlling
VIDEO
LAURE
Controlling
VIDEO
POLIC
Controlling
VIDEO
FREE