Trump Lawyers Tell Court He Never Took Oath To 'Support' Constitution

Donald Trump's lawyers are trying a new tactic to stop the Colorado lawsuit that is seeking to remove him from the ballot. In a filing this week, Trump's lawyers argued that Trump never swore an oath to "support" the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment specifically mentions anyone who has taken an oath to "support" the Constitution, therefore it doesn't apply to him. This actually isn't the dumbest idea Trump's lawyers have ever had, as Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains.

Check out our merch by visiting our store

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

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

Be sociable! Follow us on:

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

Donald Trump's attorneys are trying to, again, prevent him from being kicked off the ballot in the state of Colorado as he faces those 14th amendment lawsuits. And they, they submitted a filing in court this week that seems a little weird on the surface where they actually said that ahaha, there is a grammatical thing about the 14th amendment that says, anybody who swore an oath to support the con constitution, uh, if they then engage in insurrection or support those who have, they can hold public office. But his lawyers argue in court in the filing. If you'll notice, the presidential oath of office does not say he will support the constitution. It says he will preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, not support it. So obviously, he couldn't have violated the 14th amendment. So this whole lawsuit is totally garbage. Seems like a really stupid argument, right? Because it is. But at the same time, legally speaking, it's actually not, I hate to give any credit to Donald Trump's lawyers, but it's actually a brilliant argument.

You would be surprised if you're not in the legal field. You would be shocked how many times people, corporations, whatever it is, get away with some of the most disturbing behavior you could imagine based on semantics, based on one word here, one word there. That's all it takes. Sometimes it's shocking. It's disgusting, it sucks. It shouldn't be that way. But the letter of the law is quite literally the letter of the law. Trump did not swear an oath to support the Constitution verbatim. Its preserve, protect, and defend. Now, a good lawyer on the opposing side would be able to say, listen, we're not talking about the letters of the words, we're talking about. The definitions of the word and support would obviously be included in preserve, protect, and defend. You can't preserve, protect and defend something if you do not, of course support it. Therefore, these words are interchangeable and our lawsuit can move forward. But not every judge in the country is gonna buy that. You know, that's the whole thing about originalism versus interpretation, because an originalist judge, which typically those on the right, they're gonna look at that and be like, Nope, that's not the word they used in the law. Therefore, the, the word's not in the oath. Therefore, the word cannot be

Used to remove him from the ballot. This gets in front of the right Judge Trump. Uh, Trump wins. Freudian slipped there. Um, so again, it seems stupid. It seems like a last ditch effort, but it may just end up being the only brilliant or smart thing that Trump's lawyers have ever done.