It is a pre-meditated attempt to avoid criminal charges of treason under USC 18. If one does not have an oath, then one cannot violate it. Also, it allows loophole in "intent" defense which is most common successful defense in criminal trials to break the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Clearly Dem lawyers instructed them to do this as they have pre-gamed their own legal Defense of their actions, and they are likely assuming sympathetic judges the Dem Party has already purchased and put in place.
You are correct that none of this will matter in a UCMJ jurisdiction, and this is yet another piece of evidence that the military will need to step in and likely already has jurisdiction since we are "in a state of war".
It is a pre-meditated attempt to avoid criminal charges of treason under USC 18. If one does not have an oath, then one cannot violate it. Also, it allows loophole in "intent" defense which is most common successful defense in criminal trials to break the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Clearly Dem lawyers instructed them to do this as they have pre-gamed their own legal Defense of their actions, and they are likely assuming sympathetic judges the Dem Party has already purchased and put in place.
You are correct that none of this will matter in a UCMJ jurisdiction, and this is yet another piece of evidence that the military will need to step in and likely already has jurisdiction since we are "in a state of war".