"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

To be fair, "support" isn't the exact word used, but "preserve, protect, and defend" is pretty unequivocal

The text of the section they are challenging (emphasis added):

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.

It's an exceptionally stupid argument, even for Trump. Obviously "preserve, protect, and defend" are all forms of support, so this challenge is quite possibly the stupidest legal argument they've made so far (which is an extremely high bar). But I suppose they don't think they can realistically claim that he didnt engage in insurrection.

There is a record of the Senate debate on this amendment.

One questioned 'Why doesn't this include the president?'.

Another senator replied 'It does under the section of anyone who holds an office'.

The response was 'Ok, I was unclear on that'. And the debate carried on.

So the writers obviously intended this to include the office of the president.

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

― Jean-Paul Sartre

I hope he has more success arguing semantics with the prison gang leaders.

I hope his prison wardens give him pants that don't support adult diapers.

Given the oath an elected official needs to swear, you'd think this would invalidate him for even trying to get elected.

But we know the normal rules don't seem to matter any more.

If only he had murdered a bunch of small children instead then Republicans might have cared about the Constitution part.

His only duty is to Putin, and himself.

In that order.

I’m sorry, fucking what now?

That’s the nation’s constitutionalists’ preferred candidate, everyone, nothing wrong here.

The insanity of this mf

So I guess that's basically an admission that he violated his oath.

Traitor

He's right, cuz he had his fingers crossed while he was being sworn in. 🤞

Trump screeching the quiet part out loud

Wow, what a patriot!

/s just in case

And 50% of Americans approve! Bravo!

This is like cops saying they no obligation to serve and protect.