There have been some well meaning attempts to refute which all fell apart via dictionary, constitution, or legal precedent.
Actually, your argument is not supported by the Constitution or legal precedent.
1. Treason is not defined in the Constitution the way you claimed it is.
2. The first amendment protects everyone when they voice political opinions including opinions of the Constitution and that includes the US President.
3. Voicing an opinion about the Constitution does not violate any oath to uphold the US Constitution. (See the first amendment and the ability to amend the Constitution.)
4. There is no legal precedent to accuse a Political figure of Treason just because he voices an opinion disagreed with by others.
5. "Adhering to their enemies, giving aid and comfort" requires more than just words. It must be an overt act that actually provides an actual enemy with actual aid and comfort.
Your arguments would be laughed out of any courtroom in the US. So this idea that you have knowledge of legal precedent or the US Constitution and your arguments somehow withstand scrutiny just because you say so is ludicrous.