Another absurd proposal from President Biden

[BackAgain]

The judicial system already protects people from malicious prosecutions.

Obviously, that’s not even remotely true.

You’re going to need another pretext.

I don’t need any pretexts. Yiur reply is simply false.

“Constitutionally required presidential actions” is bullshit excuse making

Nope. It’s a legal pre-condition. Try to follow along.

Trump tried to reverse the outcome of the election by fraud, corruption and deceit.

False I all respects.

No other president ever tried to do that.

Neither did Trump.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Breaking: Biden to also propose banning uncle cannibalism.

Biden prolly ate a few kids after he molested them....

 

[Marener]

Obviously, that’s not even remotely true.

Sure is. That’s how it works for the rest of us who don’t need any special immunity.

I don’t need any pretexts. Yiur reply is simply false.

Sure you do. No one ever thought this was a legit doctrine before it became necessary to protect Trump.

Nope. It’s a legal pre-condition. Try to follow along.

It’s riddled with problems including the fact that “official acts” is absurdly vague and they placed absurd hurdles to even get to proving that something wasn’t an official act.

False I all respects.

You’re in denial. A trial would have demonstrated this but of course we can’t have that because your side will tear up the legal system for political reasons.

Neither did Trump.

Absolutely. Remember when he instructed the DoJ to lie to the American people and tell them there was election fraud? I do. Remember when he tried to tell states to change their electors? I do. Remember when he told Pence not to count Biden’s electors? I do.

What other president did that?

 

[badbob85037]

Biden wants to propose a Constitutional amendment to “reverse” the SCOTUS decision on Presidential Immunity.

Biden to push for constitutional amendment next week to reverse Trump immunity decision: report — Fox News

President Biden is reportedly set to propose major changes to the Constitution on Monday in response to recent Supreme Court decisions he has criticized.

apple.news

Just as we don’t believe in ex post facto laws, so too we don’t accept ex post facto Constitutional Amendments designed to impact just one individual.

Thankfully, it won’t matter. No such proposal to amend the Constitution is going to get enacted or passed or ratified, anyway.

In fact, even if it were to somehow get ratified, it would only impact future Presidents.

Let's find out.

 

[BackAgain]

OK

Granting Pardons is an official act
Selling them to the highest bidder is criminal

Where does the Supreme Court ban that?

It is not within the official Constitutional duties of the Executive to SELL Pardons

Ergo, no immunity. So simple and obvious, even you should be able to grasp that much, Leftwhiner.

 

[BackAgain]

Sure is. That’s how it works for the rest of us who don’t need any special immunity.

Sure you do. No one ever thought this was a legit doctrine before it became necessary to protect Trump.

It’s riddled with problems including the fact that “official acts” is absurdly vague and they placed absurd hurdles to even get to proving that something wasn’t an official act.

You’re in denial. A trial would have demonstrated this but of course we can’t have that because your side will tear up the legal system for political reasons.

Absolutely. Remember when he instructed the DoJ to lie to the American people and tell them there was election fraud? I do. Remember when he tried to tell states to change their electors? I do. Remember when he told Pence not to count Biden’s electors? I do.

What other president did that?

Your ongoing confusion is very amusing.

 

[Marener]

It is not within the official Constitutional duties of the Executive to SELL Pardons

Ergo, no immunity. So simple and obvious, even you should be able to grasp that much, Leftwhiner.

You’re not allowed to consider the motive of the official act in order to determine if it’s illegal.

You never read the decision.

 

[BackAgain]

Let's find out.

Let’s not.

 

[Marener]

Your ongoing confusion is very amusing.

Your ongoing denial is disappointing.

This was the best you can do and we’ve already exhausted your capacity to argue this indefensible decision.

 

[BackAgain]

You’re not allowed to consider the motive of the official act in order to determine if it’s illegal.

You never read the decision.

I did. Unlike you, I understood it.

Again for you insufferably slow of thinking:

It is not within even the outer parameters of any President’s Constitutional authority to SELL pardons.

Accordingly, it wouldn’t get the benefit of immunity.

 

[BackAgain]

Your ongoing denial is disappointing.

This was the best you can do and we’ve already exhausted your capacity to argue this indefensible decision.

I’ve already exhausted you because your ability to think is too shallow to allow you to keep it going.

 

[Marener]

I’ve already exhausted you because your ability to think is too shallow to allow you to keep it going.

Right. My thinking is shallow, that’s why you’re avoiding addressing any of the points I’ve made.

Tell me. Why does the president need protection from politically motivated prosecution but no one else does?

 

[BluesLegend]

The Trump SCOTUS has been firing broadsides into the Dem party. Hence they are unhinged and attacking Democracy.

 

[BackAgain]

Right. My thinking is shallow, that’s why you’re avoiding addressing any of the points I’ve made.

I did. You just have chosen to close your eyes. Typically shallow and dishonest of you.

Tell me. Why does the president need protection from politically motivated prosecution but no one else does?

Others do get protections of immunity, you ignorant troll. Judges do. Prosecutors do too. Try to keep up.

 

[Marener]

Others do get protections of immunity, you ignorant troll. Judges do. Prosecutors do too. Try to keep up.

Is that it? I don’t have immunity from politically motivated prosecutions. Neither do you.

Nor does anyone else in the administration.

 

[BackAgain]

Is that it? I don’t have immunity from politically motivated prosecutions. Neither do you.

I’m sorry I don’t care to correct your non sequiturs.

You aren’t the President nor a prosecutor nor a judge.

Nor does anyone else in the administration.

Other folks in a President’s Admijiatrqrion aren’t the President.

 

[Marener]

You aren’t the President nor a prosecutor nor a judge.

But I can still be maliciously prosecuted. Why don’t I get protection too?

Other folks in a President’s Admijiatrqrion aren’t the President.

They do for orders from the president. Which raises an interesting point. The president can’t be prosecuted for telling you to do something illegal but you can be prosecuted for doing it.

Literally holding his subordinates to a higher legal standard and also wiping out basically the entire rationale for giving him immunity.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Biden wants to propose a Constitutional amendment to “reverse” the SCOTUS decision on Presidential Immunity.

Biden to push for constitutional amendment next week to reverse Trump immunity decision: report — Fox News

President Biden is reportedly set to propose major changes to the Constitution on Monday in response to recent Supreme Court decisions he has criticized.

apple.news

Just as we don’t believe in ex post facto laws, so too we don’t accept ex post facto Constitutional Amendments designed to impact just one individual.

Thankfully, it won’t matter. No such proposal to amend the Constitution is going to get enacted or passed or ratified, anyway.

In fact, even if it were to somehow get ratified, it would only impact future Presidents.

He's gaslighting again.

He waited not even a month after he got immunity to attempt to "save democracy" and assassinate Trump.

 

[BackAgain]

But I can still be maliciously prosecuted. Why don’t I get protection too?

Why should you? That’s what the trials themselves are for.

What morons like you seem unable to grasp (or unwilling to admit) is that the prospect of not just being second-guessed about but persecuted for decisions made as President could adversely affect the decision-making of the President.

They do for orders from the president. Which raises an interesting point. The president can’t be prosecuted for telling you to do something illegal but you can be prosecuted for doing it.

You’re babbling.

Literally holding his subordinates to a higher legal standard and also wiping out basically the entire rationale for giving him immunity.

You’re babbling. There is but one President.

 

[Marener]

Why should you? That’s what the trials themselves are for.

Trump would get a trial too, but that’s not good enough for you guys. Why is it good enough for the rest of us?

What morons like you seem unable to grasp (or unwilling to admit) is that the prospect of not just being second-guessed about but persecuted for decisions made as President could adversely affect the decision-making of the President.

And a president who can’t be prosecuted for decisions they made could adversely affect the country.

I think presidents should be worried about the consequences of their actions. That way they will be careful to follow the law. That is important, isn’t it? That president’s follow the law.

You’re babbling.

You’re babbling. There is but one President.

Avoiding the point doesn’t demonstrate much intellectual honesty on your part. I’ll give you more time to come up with an actual response before I assume you can’t.