• Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Trump’s lawyers argued:

    “If they wanted to include in the reach of Section Three, they could have done so by expanding the language of which type of oath would bring an ‘officer’ under the strictures of Section Three. They did not do so, and no number of semantical arguments will change this simple fact. As such, Section Three does not apply to President Trump.”

    So let me get this right. They used a whole bunch of semantical arguments (and a level of mental gymnastics that would put the Olympics to shame) to argue that the rules don’t apply to trump, then turned around and said that you can’t use semantical arguments to make a counterpoint. What the fuck? Did these lawyers really just make a “no take backsies” argument in an actual courtroom?

    I know Trump is down to working with dime-store lawyers that are barely qualified to argue jaywalking cases, but come on. More of these judges need to start slapping these lawyers with fines and sanctions for wasting the courts time with such frivilous motions, hearings, and arguments. I’m not saying that they can’t try to give a zealous defense, but there’s a difference between “zealous” and “absurd”.