Try making your point again only this time use Article 1, Section 6 , clause 1 to see where we get: "The Constitution of the United States grants legislative immunity to members of Congress through the Speech or Debate Clause, but has no explicit comparable grant for the president. Early American politicians, including those at the Constitutional Convention, were divided as to whether such immunity should exist." Presidential immunity is a SCOTUS construct. But nice try.
How dare he question our judicial system. He is undermining the rule of law. He is an existential threat to democracy. Did I forget any? Borrowed those from our left leaning friends from previous threads about legal rulings.
- No one in the military has died under my administration - I have increased the number of police but my opponent wants to defund them
No he is not. Stop watching MSNBC and parroting all of their cheap fake talking points. The media has been telling the left cultists that this "is the best version of Joe Biden," we can't keep up with him day to day he is so energetic, his mind is amazingly sharp.....all lies and they knew it. But you believed them and they were lying to you the entire time. They lie constantly about Biden BUT, they are always telling you the truth about Trump. Yeah right. Everyone knows he said he would be a dictator ON Day 1 to close the border and drill, drill, drill, you know exactly the same thing Biden did on his first day to undo a lot of the things Trump did. He used that language to tweak the left cultists and of course they ran with it and intentionally twisted it. Exactly like the good people on both sides narrative the media lied to you about for years. "After day 1 I am NOT a dictator." Exact quote from Trump.
Quote from Trump to Newsmax ( right lean con site) " On Tuesday, in an interview with the conservative outlet Newsmax, Trump seemed to float the possibility of imprisoning his political opponents if he becomes president again. “So, you know, it’s a terrible, terrible path that they’re leading us to, and it’s very possible that it’s going to have to happen to them,” Trump said. “Does that mean the next president does it to them? That’s really the question,” he added. He has also suggested that there would be a “breaking point” for the public if he is sentenced to jail time or house arrest, as he awaits his sentencing set for July 11." Has brought it up in 5 different interviews.
Trump has repeatedly talked about retribution. He means it. No one but Trump has ever promised to be a dictator for even a second. Besides, who can ever forget Trump ordering troops to forcefully clear peaceful protestors out of the park for a photo opp. He has often threatened to use the National Guard against US citizens and had to be deterred by top military officials, who don't want the military used against American citizens. Yet, he failed to call in the National Guard to defend Congress and his own VP when his brownshirts sacked the US Capitol. His hours of silence that day placed his VP and members of Congress in jeopardy for hours. As a result, he became the first and only President to not have a peaceful transfer of power.
Not a serious question. It's absurd to suggest Biden would go authoritarian after 3 1/2 years in office. Has Biden incarcerated traitor and convicted felon Trump as a threat to national security? No. According to Monday's Supreme Court decision, Biden could do so . . . . with immunity. But he won't. Has Biden pardoned his son? No. Trump will pardon every convicted felon he knows, no matter what their crimes were.
In Today's environment there is no way in hell Nixon would have resigned and the gop would have never voted to impeach him. Apparently that was the gop takeway from the watergate scandal, and we are seeing the results of that now.
The Supreme Court majority is certain that Biden will not use the powers they gave him, even as we all know Trump will. They are banking on the Dems being better than them.
I'm old enough to remember when Biden accompanied these words with a criminal conspiracy to overturn an election, including a violent component in which hundreds of police were beaten and the Capitol Building desecrated. I do have that correct don't I? Or was that the convicted felon traitor that you shill for?
The sanctimonious, moral superiority of this one is strong. Consider rtgator's prior post arguing: (a) "absurd to suggest that Biden would go authoritarian after 3 1/2 years in office'; and (b) Biden could incarcerate Trump, a felon and "traitor," but "he won't." As to (a), there is obviously a scale on what "authoritarian" means/entails. That aside, Trump did not use the DOJ to bring criminal charges against prior Presidents or Presidential candidates during his 4 years in office (4 > 3 1/2, by the way). Biden expressly supported using the might and force of the DOJ and state affiliates to find any avenue possible to imprison Trump beginning in year 1 of his Presidency AND continues to do so. Not really a question of whether or not Biden WILL "go authoritarian" just a question of whether the means he did so meets the Left's definition on any given day. Now, if Biden found a military outfit that would consider him competent to order a physical interaction with Trump and his supporters, is there really much doubt that rtgator and the MSM would hail that decision as necessary and glorious to "disappear" that "traitor" Trump and half the country? Well, democracy must be protected, I guess. As to (b), see (a) above. In addition, Biden and his supporters are constant cheerleaders of incarcerating Trump - then, now, and forever. To say Biden "won't," is only a diversionary regret of the Left's inability to do so at present. As each of the "cases" become exposed as political attacks dressed in lawful prosecution, Biden and the Left stamp their feet harder and shrill louder about the unfairness of our constitutional Republic and the inherent evil of anyone not cheering along. "They" (USSC) are not "banking" on the Dems being better with the ramifications of its opinions. USSC is quite aware of the Dems and/or the Reps both being self-serving and threats to the Constitutional balance of power. Accordingly, there is now an expressed immunity (formerly accepted and understood without the need for judicial precedent) that is expansive and limited, at the same time, depending upon the facts/circumstances of the allegations. One would think that the party of "nuance" would appreciate and celebrate the ruling.
