Idea for Biden to consider

[BULLDOG]

It's obvious that Congress needs to pass legislation rescinding blanket immunity for a sitting president. It's also obvious that congress has no desire to pass such legislation. Biden should present his idea for such legislation along with the promise that if it isn't passed quickly, before the election, he will commit some obviously illegal act and rely on his blanket immunity for protection. There is a wide range of actions the president might take to make the MAGAs cringe for years to come and there will be nothing to be done if the legislation is not passed. If it is passed as requested, there will be no need for Biden to fulfill his promise. Of course, there are countless reasons why this scenario should or would never work and Biden is too ethical to even consider such a ploy but that is no reason to take it off the table yet.

MSN

 

[jotathought]

It's obvious that Congress needs to pass legislation rescinding blanket immunity for a sitting president. It's also obvious that congress has no desire to pass such legislation. Biden should present his idea for such legislation along with the promise that if it isn't passed quickly, before the election, he will commit some obviously illegal act and rely on his blanket immunity for protection. There is a wide range of actions the president might take to make the MAGAs cringe for years to come and there will be nothing to be done if the legislation is not passed. If it is passed as requested, there will be no need for Biden to fulfill his promise. Of course, there are countless reasons why this scenario should or would never work and Biden is too ethical to even consider such a ploy but that is no reason to take it off the table yet.

MSN

Got it .. so you request the Biden / Harris administration to act unethically, while at the same time advocating ethical standards for the Supreme Court? Makes perfect sense.

 

[Independent thinker]

Got it .. so you request the Biden / Harris administration to act unethically, while at the same time advocating ethical standards for the Supreme Court? Makes perfect sense.

Bull is just a troll.

 

[BULLDOG]

Got it .. so you request the Biden / Harris administration to act unethically, while at the same time advocating ethical standards for the Supreme Court? Makes perfect sense.

It does in the MAGA environment such as it is.

 

[struth]

It's obvious that Congress needs to pass legislation rescinding blanket immunity for a sitting president. It's also obvious that congress has no desire to pass such legislation. Biden should present his idea for such legislation along with the promise that if it isn't passed quickly, before the election, he will commit some obviously illegal act and rely on his blanket immunity for protection. There is a wide range of actions the president might take to make the MAGAs cringe for years to come and there will be nothing to be done if the legislation is not passed. If it is passed as requested, there will be no need for Biden to fulfill his promise. Of course, there are countless reasons why this scenario should or would never work and Biden is too ethical to even consider such a ploy but that is no reason to take it off the table yet.

MSN

a sitting president doesn't have blanket immunity....not sure what you are talkinga bout

 

[Rawley]

It's obvious that Congress needs to pass legislation rescinding blanket immunity for a sitting president. It's also obvious that congress has no desire to pass such legislation. Biden should present his idea for such legislation along with the promise that if it isn't passed quickly, before the election, he will commit some obviously illegal act and rely on his blanket immunity for protection. There is a wide range of actions the president might take to make the MAGAs cringe for years to come and there will be nothing to be done if the legislation is not passed. If it is passed as requested, there will be no need for Biden to fulfill his promise. Of course, there are countless reasons why this scenario should or would never work and Biden is too ethical to even consider such a ploy but that is no reason to take it off the table yet.

MSN

Sounds like a fabulous idea. What are some examples of "some obviously illegal act(s)" you have in mind?

 

[Zincwarrior]

It's obvious that Congress needs to pass legislation rescinding blanket immunity for a sitting president. It's also obvious that congress has no desire to pass such legislation. Biden should present his idea for such legislation along with the promise that if it isn't passed quickly, before the election, he will commit some obviously illegal act and rely on his blanket immunity for protection. There is a wide range of actions the president might take to make the MAGAs cringe for years to come and there will be nothing to be done if the legislation is not passed. If it is passed as requested, there will be no need for Biden to fulfill his promise. Of course, there are countless reasons why this scenario should or would never work and Biden is too ethical to even consider such a ploy but that is no reason to take it off the table yet.

MSN

Like what? It has to be an official act with a power only he has to be totally immune per SCOTUS. What are you thinking?

 

[BULLDOG]

a sitting president doesn't have blanket immunity....not sure what you are talkinga bout

Do you live in a cave somewhere with no radio or tv?

 

[BULLDOG]

Like what? It has to be an official act with a power only he has to be totally immune per SCOTUS. What are you thinking?

Lots of possibilities, but it's not my place to inject my thoughts into official strategy. I just mentioned the possibility.

 

[jotathought]

It does in the MAGA environment such as it is.

Was that a yes or no?

 

[Couchpotato]

Do you live in a cave somewhere with no radio or tv?

Have you? The SCOTUS decision doesnt give President blanket immunity. Dont believe me though believe the Chief Justice of SCOTUS

"A former president is entitled to "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

• The former president is entitled to "presumptive immunity" for other official acts but "no immunity for unofficial acts," he added.
• It is now up to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan — who is overseeing Trump's Jan. 6 case — to determine whether the acts Trump is accused of in the indictment are "official" or not.

Zoom in: Roberts wrote that Trump is "absolutely immune" from prosecution for any conduct in the indictment involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.

• Roberts wrote that Trump's alleged attempts to get then-Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the electoral college votes "involve official conduct."
• Trump is "at least presumptively immune" from allegations that he pressured Pence, he continued. However, Roberts said it was up to the district court to make the final decision on whether that pressure was outside of the scope of Trump's "official" duties."

 

[Couchpotato]

Do you live in a cave somewhere with no radio or tv?

Should we be bringing charges against Pres Obama for drone striking US citizens in a foreign country?

 

[marvin martian]

It's obvious that Congress needs to pass legislation rescinding blanket immunity for a sitting president. It's also obvious that congress has no desire to pass such legislation. Biden should present his idea for such legislation along with the promise that if it isn't passed quickly, before the election, he will commit some obviously illegal act and rely on his blanket immunity for protection. There is a wide range of actions the president might take to make the MAGAs cringe for years to come and there will be nothing to be done if the legislation is not passed. If it is passed as requested, there will be no need for Biden to fulfill his promise. Of course, there are countless reasons why this scenario should or would never work and Biden is too ethical to even consider such a ploy but that is no reason to take it off the table yet.

MSN

You don't understand what the SCOTUS decision says.

 

[BULLDOG]

Was that a yes or no?

No. I didn't request anything. I just pointed out a perfectly legal course of action that might be considered.

 

[BULLDOG]

Have you? The SCOTUS decision doesnt give President blanket immunity. Dont believe me though believe the Chief Justice of SCOTUS

"A former president is entitled to "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

• The former president is entitled to "presumptive immunity" for other official acts but "no immunity for unofficial acts," he added.
• It is now up to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan — who is overseeing Trump's Jan. 6 case — to determine whether the acts Trump is accused of in the indictment are "official" or not.

Zoom in: Roberts wrote that Trump is "absolutely immune" from prosecution for any conduct in the indictment involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.

• Roberts wrote that Trump's alleged attempts to get then-Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the electoral college votes "involve official conduct."
• Trump is "at least presumptively immune" from allegations that he pressured Pence, he continued. However, Roberts said it was up to the district court to make the final decision on whether that pressure was outside of the scope of Trump's "official" duties."

The scenario I described would certainly be under his presidential authority.

 

[Zincwarrior]

He has sole authority over the military yes? He has sole authority over Gitmo yes?

 

[struth]

Do you live in a cave somewhere with no radio or tv?

No, no I don't.

President's, have personal civil and criminal immunity from acts taken place during their official duties. No different then other govt officials.

 

[BULLDOG]

Should we be bringing charges against Pres Obama for drone striking US citizens in a foreign country?

Those actions were clearly undertaken under presidential authority.

 

[TNHarley]

"blanket immunity" does not exist. IDK why you people keep fucking lying about it.

 

[jotathought]

The scenario I described would certainly be under his presidential authority.

Gotcha .. supporting an unethical approach for an administration pushing ethics.