Donald Trump is making some questionable arguments in his appeal to the Supreme Court to keep on state ballots after he was booted off Colorado's, Vice News reported.
Trump's legal team claims that the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was not an insurrection. It also claims that, even if it was, he did not participate and is therefore not liable for trial.
But his "silliest" argument, according to Vice, is his claim that he never technically swore an oath to “support” the Constitution. Vice writer Greg Walters called them "ludicrous."
Also read: Prosecuting Trump will open 'Pandora's box' from which the U.S. will never recover: lawyer
"The Constitution’s insurrection clause says that if any officer of the United States swears to support the Constitution, and then joins or assists an insurrection, then that person is disqualified from holding office in the future," Vice's report stated. "Trump’s lawyers argue that the pledge Trump took when he was sworn into the presidency doesn’t match the exact language of this Constitutional provision—so it doesn’t count."
Vice went on: "Trump’s petition to the Supreme Court to reverse his electoral disqualification in Colorado makes some guffaw-inducing claims. Just take the part where it says that Trump never technically vowed to “support” the Constitution, despite being sworn in as president. Or where it makes the rather confusing claim that even if Trump is legally barred from becoming president again, he should still be allowed to campaign for the office—and even win the election.
Trump also claims that the Constitution only prevents an insurrectionist from "holding office," not running for it -- although what happens in that scenario is left vague.
Read the full article over at Vice News.
