One of Donald Trump’s lawyers appeared to accidentally admit that the former president may have engaged in insurrection.

Christina Bobb, a vocal 2020 election denier, tried to argue Tuesday night that voters should be able to elect anyone they want for president.

“The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.”

Bobb seems to be arguing that even an insurrectionist should be allowed to run the country, which could be seen as an admission of guilt.

  • 4am@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    125
    ·
    11 months ago

    What a dumb article, who came up with the angle on this piece of shit?

    “She said it doesn’t matter if he’s an insurrectionist or not! That means she knows he’s guilty!” is some literal schoolyard logic.

    What we should be more concerned with is:

    • She doesn’t seem to understand the 14th amendment
    • She doesn’t seem to mind an insurrectionist running the country
    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      Right. Also, what is meant by “entire nation…should be up to the people”?

      If we are jumping to conclusions, this might as well mean getting rid of the electoral college and the unequal representation it enables via gerrymandering. Considering republicans haven’t won the popular vote in something like 30 years, I’m for it. Let the people decide…all of them.

  • Goku@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    99
    ·
    11 months ago

    Funny how now it’s the “entire nation” that elects the president and not the electoral college.

  • TheSlad@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    11 months ago

    “The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president…"

    Hmm yes please, lets abolish the electoral college so that presidents are in fact decided by the entire nation collectively and equally!

    Never thought i would agree with a Trump lawyer…

  • Matt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    11 months ago

    It warms my soul to see Trump using the least qualified lawyers.

    • Norgur@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      Any lawyer in a position to refuse him as a client will stay the fuck away from the angry orange as possible.

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    11 months ago

    “The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.”

    When was the last time a Republican won the popular vote?

    • MimicJar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      2004, Bush’s second term. Which, electorally speaking, wasn’t that long ago.

      Of course the 2016 and 2000 elections both saw Republican candidates win the presidency, but not the popular vote.

      The 2000 election is also special since it came down to a judicial decision and was a 0.5% difference.

      The 2016 election however is more clear, since it was a 2% difference.

      Also keep in mind this had never happened before. So 2000 was when we should have started to take action, but since every election after (until 2016) it went back to normal, it made 2000 look like an outlier.

      Which is all a long was of saying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact is probably the answer here.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    11 months ago

    Again, they are no longer arguing that he didn’t do it. They are arguing that he should face any ramifications for it.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Hey look, it’s narcissism:

    That didn’t happen.

    And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.

    And if it was, that’s not a big deal.

    And if it is, that’s not my fault.

    And if it was, I didn’t mean it.

    And if I did, you deserved it.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    11 months ago

    She also has zero understanding of the 14th Amendment & Constitution in general.

    Its a good thing she’s pretty, her legal career is likely dead after Trump is incarcerated.

    • Candelestine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      What part of the insurrection clause is so misunderstood?

      Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

      edit: I just don’t get it. It seems like very clear language to me

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s literally just childish denial in adult brains. That’s it. The people who disagree are either evil shitlords that WANT a strongman ruler, or dumb morons who quite literally do not understand democracy. There are no sane people that believe he is qualified.

      • LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        They’re claiming the Office of the President doesn’t technically fit into any of the offices listed in the 14th amendment.

        The office of the president is a weird one. For example, the president is the commander of the military, but is not a part of the military. The president is a civilian position (and technically, the president shouldn’t be saluting troops.) So if the president violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but not a civilian law, they couldn’t be tried for that.

        CLEARLY the 14th amendment would include the president, but lawyers do what lawyers do.

    • takeda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I would not say she doesn’t understand it, she is paid to understand it in a way that makes trump innocent.