It is fraud and it is precident.
No... people set ‘precedent,’ an example by their actions and decisions that others may follow as a guide in like/same situations.
You conflate the meaning of the word between 2 distinct interpretations. Its use under a legal lens and its use in/under the course of social behavior.
You use the indifferent social behavior interpretation which is un-tethered to legal scrutiny.
Under the legal scrutiny of the Constitution, its jurisdiction and pursuant to its laws set forth by the requirement that the president must meet the qualifications of the the office of POTUS... there can be NO ‘precedent’ if the oath of office was unlawfully administered to a poser/fraud ‘Barry Hussein.’ The act was not pursuant to law or legal decision and cannot serve as an authoritative rule or proceeding.
It was a deliberate subversive unlawful act; a deliberate usurpation of supreme law and an act of fraud at the level of a high crime... it was treason against the constitution.
So no... Barry’s election and inauguration did not set legal precedent.