Idea for Biden to consider

[westwall]

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

Or charging Biden with treason fir importing millions of illegal aliens?

 

[westwall]

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

Because all they have are lies.

Duh...

 

[Billiejeens]

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

I stopped at blanket immunity
There is no blanket immunity.

Our legal system is way to complicated for you.

 

[Billiejeens]

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's bulldog

 

[Rawley]

I stopped at blanket immunity
There is no blanket immunity.

Our legal system is way to complicated for you.

Give the gal a break. Its was the talking point her cult masters gave to her. Understanding or explaining such talking points is above her pay grade.

 

[jotathought]

It's bulldog

I know .. and the recommendation is pure irony at its finest.

 

[Couchpotato]

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

But that's not what you said is it? You said SCOTUS granted the President BLANKET IMMUNITY, and when someone pointed out that wasnt true you said and I quote "Do you live in a cave somewhere with no radio or tv?"

So it's a fair question what illegal activities?

 

[Couchpotato]

Those actions were clearly undertaken under presidential authority.

In violation of the Constitution but sure....

And I was under the impression you didnt support that ruling so you do think charges should be brought?

 

[dblack]

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.

There oughtta be a law!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's also obvious that congress has no desire to pass such legislation.

The Senate does; it’s the Republican-controlled House that does not.

Otherwise, President Biden is too honest to be involved such a Trump-like scheme.

 

[BULLDOG]

But that's not what you said is it? You said SCOTUS granted the President BLANKET IMMUNITY, and when someone pointed out that wasnt true you said and I quote "Do you live in a cave somewhere with no radio or tv?"

So it's a fair question what illegal activities?

According to the supreme court ruling, nothing a sitting president does using his presidential authority is illegal. He has the legal authority to scoop trump up and drop him in Gitmo, or some unknown base where he will never be heard from again.

 

[BULLDOG]

In violation of the Constitution but sure....

And I was under the impression you didnt support that ruling so you do think charges should be brought?

You are certainly free to believe anything you choose. I know nothing I might say will change your mind anyway.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Like what?

Like this:

“Anwar Nasser Abdulla al-Awlaki was an American-Yemeni lecturer and jihadist who was killed in 2011 in Yemen by a U.S. government drone strike ordered by President Barack Obama. Al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and killed by a drone strike from the U.S. government.[7][8] U.S. government officials have stated that al-Awlaki was a key organizer for the Islamist terrorist group al-Qaeda.”

Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hellokitty]

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

Why do you think any of this will matter when TRUMP get's re-elected he's gonna be a Dictator?

 

[BULLDOG]

Why do you think any of this will matter when TRUMP get's re-elected he's gonna be a Dictator?

That's why it's so important to defeat that orange criminal

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why do you think any of this will matter when TRUMP get's re-elected he's gonna be a Dictator?

It matters because if elected, Trump will be a dictator.

It’s important for Congress to act not just because of Trump, but because of the next Republican president who will likewise be a dictator.

 

[Roy C]

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

Maybe you should go the white house dot gov and put that in the electronic suggestion box. i'm sure they will read it.

 

[struth]

It matters because if elected, Trump will be a dictator.

It’s important for Congress to act not just because of Trump, but because of the next Republican president who will likewise be a dictator.

hahha yeah we heard that before, and well, he wasn't. In fact a record number of Americans were better off then they after 3.6 years of Xiden/Harris

 

[MarcATL]

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

Brilliant idea!

 

[Couchpotato]

You are certainly free to believe anything you choose. I know nothing I might say will change your mind anyway.

You dont think a President ordering a drone strike on a US citizen might be in violation of that person's Constitutional rights?