That’s not what he’s saying, and I’m not a Trumpet but the article’s pretty clear: Trump’s argument is that he swore to “preserve, protect and defend” but that elsewhere the constitution defines officers as people who swear to “support” so he’s not an “officer”.
It’s stupid and nitpicky but not as clickbaity as the headline.
random65837@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’m not “arguing” anything. Thats what the linked article says.
FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You do understand that as his legal representation, they are arguing for him, which makes their argument legally literally his argument?
random65837@lemmy.world 1 year ago
No actually, thats not how lawyers work, you tell them your part, and they say itn how it needs to be said to work for you, hence the part of hiring them, its almost never verbatim.
So again, his lawyers words, not his. Can you quote HIM saying it, yes or no?
FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Why are you complaining to me, while the Independent must have made the same mistake in your eyes?