In a tongue-in-cheek column for the New Republic, a former advisor to both Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton suggested President Joe Biden test the boundaries of a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.

Noting the conservative-leaning court appears to be giving whomever is president unfettered authority to do anything they want as long as it is done under the vague imprimatur of an "official act," Sidney Blumenthal jokingly suggested Biden start by arresting members of the opposing party.

Speaking in Biden's voice he wrote, "I have read the court’s majority opinion that an official act of the president is “presumptively” immune from all prosecution during and after his term, and that the president’s motive cannot be questioned," and then added he was taking "the court’s opinion to heart. I am not one to defy the court. I am, as many have remarked, an institutionalist."

With that so stated, Blumenthal — again speaking for Biden — wrote, "I regret to inform you that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has been arrested. A number of other members of the House Republican Conference have been taken into custody. Jim Jordan, unfortunately, attempted to resist arrest. After wrestling with an FBI agent, he met a tragic fate," for which he added, "we can all give thanks to the Supreme Court."

Denny

The BS are streaming in full and fast - the Supreme Court merely confirmned what was in practise  in the USA from Washingtgon the Biden, namely -

*    that the Presidednt as to official decisions taken cannot be charged for any official  decisions taken; and

*     that since all  decisions are not official decisions and Presidents take potother decisions of a personal nature that could be criminal - the President can be charged for criminality based on unofficial decisions.

In the first  instance the  Prosecutors must convince the Court why decisions taken was not official deciisions when laying charges and then  confirm what criminal actiivties are the ex-  President accused of.

The Democrats are horrified by that extremely logical decision.    They do not realize that they have to prove in Courts of Law what crfimes Trump actually committed in his private capacity and that is where their problems are coming from and what laws had been broken is a  continuous mytery for that must be used to dcecide on private criminality and must be convince trhe law what lawsd were broken by Trump in the past.

So in  practice the p[resemnt hsyuteria of the Democrats is clear - they have been told political usage of the legal system is not acceptable in terms of the US constitution .  .

The fact is in the criminal charges has to be proven in a court of law and it must be clear what laws Trump broke.   Thus fsr there were no laws broken in the New York cases - in other words it is political BS.   The Smith charges had to be re-examined to see what laws were broken and what criminality actually entails.   Trumps legal defense team has toaccess to all documents involved and thus is where thngs are going wrong for the Prosecution. from the word go.   The emdia are promoting the charges - but there has as yet no evidence that TRump did anyth ing  illegal and the mere  reference to Trump taking any documents with him were notrf illegal - since Presidents hace the  lawful right to declassifcy documents he took with them as well as proof encourfageed tfhe protestors on  January 6  to act illgally and storm the Capitol.   

If Trump did actually committed actual proven criminality he should be sharged for it - if the charges thus far is the case - then  it will not be entertained as legal by the Courts.  The situation is easy political propaganda does not prove criminality. 

.In another threat you indicated that right wing people did no care for the lives lost.    Where and why were lives lost - please explain that statement on site - where were the lives lost and why is for instance people ctrittical of Biden is responsible for loss of lives.