The Defending Joe Biden Mega-Thread

[Trunkage]

I mean, they're both based on lies, but it's interesting to investigate your reasoning further. Do you truly believe that it is more virtuous to go looting because you don't like the truth than it is to break into Congress based on a lie?

Yes. Generally, stealing property is a lesser crime then trying to transfer of power. It's also a lesser crime than killing someone.

Virtueness is not an on/off switch. All of it is bad, but killing someone is definitely less virtuous

But we were talking about rioting, not looting specifically. And I was willing to call BLM a riot, particularly the first day. Which I pointed out was used by police to riot back

 

[Trunkage]

Most of the people protesting in the BLM riots were not doing it for virtuous reasons. How is breaking into stores and stealing stuff helping the cause? It's the same thing with the Occupy movement (which I agree with the general sentiment). I have friend that was really into it, I don't think she was like an organizer or something but probably at least talked with people high up in the Chicago group. She asked to come to one of them and I asked "so what's basically the plan of attack / what are you guys actually doing to get anything done?" And they literally had no plans of actually doing anything so I didn't go because it was basically pointless.

Most of the looting was not done by BLM. It was done by opportunist

Some BLM protesters did loot. It was not even 1% of the total people protesting at BLM.... even if you include all the opportunist too. Like how most Jan 6 people did not do anything violent

Most is a ridiculous claim. You're doing the Covid vaccine killed thousands thing. Just making up stats

 

[tstorm823]

...except you can't use the content of those orders as evidence that those orders are not immune. Like, this is a key element of the decision meant specifically to protect Trump - you can't use his communications with the VP or DOJ as evidence unless those communications are not immune. You also aren't allowed to look into his motives in that act.

So now you have to prove that the president ordered the military to assassinate his political rivals in a way that is not immune without reference to said orders or his motive, which cannot be used as evidence until you have proven that the orders are not immune. And that's if we accept the argument that ordering the military is not an inherent part of being commander in chief that cannot be severed from it, in which case it's just absolutely immune regardless. Likewise for the pardons - you'd have to prove that writing pardons is not absolutely immune, and then prove that those pardons are not immune without reference to the pardons in question or his motive in writing them.

Hell, assassinating a political rival is an example of something that this decision allows used by one of the dissenting justices in their opinion, not something I pulled out of nowhere.

I want you to know first and foremost that posting Legal Eagle to support your argument is conceding the argument. Legal Eagle has never been right. I also want you to understand that the dissent on the court is the minority opinion, without the weight of law, and is therefore essentially wrong interpretation by definition. "But the dissent said" means that the court held differently, likely the opposite. The Supreme Court as a whole does not agree that is a valid conclusion from their ruling.

Second, there is a whole process before the trial where evidence to be presented goes to the judge to decide if it's allowable. It's not on the attorneys to decide if the things they present to the judge are covered by presidential immunity, they'd absolutely submit it, and they'd try to make the case to the judge pre-trial that the information is outside of core presidential duties. You don't have to prove it's not covered without presenting the information itself, as the place you consider immunity is not the same as where it's potentially not allowed to be presented, in front of the jury.

The word "revenge" within quotation marks doesn't mean that it is a literal quote from the document; it means that Biden is putting air-quotes around the word to indicate that he doesn't really have any cause to seek revenge.

Why would you use air quotes to undermine the significance of the word that you chose to put in someone else's mouth? Maybe you're right that was the intention, but it doesn't make it look any better.

Yes. Generally, stealing property is a lesser crime then trying to transfer of power.

This is not actually considering the question, you're just rationalizing picking a side. If everything was reversed, if a conservative was looting based on truth and the black community were protesting the counting of electors based on lies, would you give the same answer? Would you actually say "stealing is the lesser crime"?

 

[Trunkage]

This is not actually considering the question, you're just rationalizing picking a side. If everything was reversed, if a conservative was looting based on truth and the black community were protesting the counting of electors based on lies, would you give the same answer? Would you actually say "stealing is the lesser crime"?

If the Maga faithful showed evidence of election tampering and circumventing the presidential office and then did Jan 6, I would say they were justified

If Trump leaked all those documents to Wikileaks instead of just showing off to gain, I would be against the documents case entirely

If BLM said there was police brutally and then there was no video to back it up, I would be ignoring them

Now, that doesn't mean I think the Jan 6 should invade Congress. Being outside is fine. Keeping as much looting out of protest would be best but I am going to be way more cranky at protest organizers than looters over protest. I'm going to be cranky at looters seperately

Edit: I should point out that this course of questioning is coming from Phoenix shifting goals posts about BLM from protest to riot very quickly. I should have rectified this claim instead of letting it go. 99% of BLM involved no rioting, more than half was done by police to protesters.

So, I'm only really comparing the average citizen to police in BLM and to Jan 6. And the police were more brutal than citizens in both situations. And if there is a crime, I prefer it to be property damage over physical

 

[Trunkage]

Quick query. Was there any defending of Biden in this thread?

I'll be on topic for a sec. Voting Biden is a self defense decision. That's about as much as I can give him

 

[Silvanus]

Quick query. Was there any defending of Biden in this thread?

From Gergar, absolutely.

 

[tstorm823]

And if there is a crime, I prefer it to be property damage over physical

You do understand a bunch of people died in BLM protests, right?

 

[Schadrach]

I also want you to understand that the dissent on the court is the minority opinion, without the weight of law, and is therefore essentially wrong interpretation by definition. "But the dissent said" means that the court held differently, likely the opposite. The Supreme Court as a whole does not agree that is a valid conclusion from their ruling.

Sure, sure, except the part of the dissent in question was less "this is how I interpret the law differently" and more "this consequence is an obvious example of why this is a bad decision."

And for the assassination example not to work under this decision you have to make some kind of argument that commanding the military is able to be separated from being commander of the military as two distinct duties, only one of which is proscribed by the Constitution. Likewise granting pardons vs the power to grant pardons.

 

[tstorm823]

And for the assassination example not to work under this decision you have to make some kind of argument that commanding the military is able to be separated from being commander of the military as two distinct duties, only one of which is proscribed by the Constitution. Likewise granting pardons vs the power to grant pardons.

It is incredibly easy to make that distinction in the case of assassinations: the military also has legally determined roles. The Commander of the military has discretion over what the military does within those prescribed roles. Commanding the military to do non-military things isn't part of being a president, it is not protected. Assassinating non-combatant US citizens is not part of the military's job, and thus would be incredibly easy to take to trial.

Pardons aren't going to separate like that, I don't think there's any limit to or strict guidance over the way pardons are used. If you find that problematic, the problem isn't in this ruling, that's just the way it's always been. Clinton's last day in office happened already.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Most of the looting was not done by BLM. It was done by opportunist

Some BLM protesters did loot. It was not even 1% of the total people protesting at BLM.... even if you include all the opportunist too. Like how most Jan 6 people did not do anything violent

Most is a ridiculous claim. You're doing the Covid vaccine killed thousands thing. Just making up stats

There was a ton of fucking looting during the BLM riots, burning buildings, taking over part of a city, etc. I wasn't taking roll call on who is and who isn't officially part of BLM, but my eyes can see what was happening. If BLM can be called mostly peaceful by the media, so can January 6th is my point, it's a double standard.

I never said covid vaccines killed even 1 person.

 

[Schadrach]

It is incredibly easy to make that distinction in the case of assassinations: the military also has legally determined roles. The Commander of the military has discretion over what the military does within those prescribed roles. Commanding the military to do non-military things isn't part of being a president, it is not protected. Assassinating non-combatant US citizens is not part of the military's job, and thus would be incredibly easy to take to trial.

Pardons aren't going to separate like that, I don't think there's any limit to or strict guidance over the way pardons are used. If you find that problematic, the problem isn't in this ruling, that's just the way it's always been. Clinton's last day in office happened already.

If being commander of the military is a core function of the presidency (and it doesn't get much more core than explicitly named in the constitution) then anything done in that role is absolutely immune and neither anything done in that role nor any motives related to it can be considered. You literally have to argue that giving the military an order is a separate thing than commanding the military for is to only be presumptively immune and for what the order is to even be relevant.

Or to put it another way, why do you think Trump trying to use the DOJ and VP to find any way they can conceive of to overturn an election he lost should be immune under this, but expect there to be some kind of strict scrutiny and narrow limits on immunity for powers explicitly granted by the Constitution (when things like "telling your VP not to certify the election" is protected)?

They literally only decided this this way because they suspect the Biden admin won't have the balls to abuse it at all (his handlers caring more about decorum, norms, civility and the like) and they expect Trump to win.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

If being commander of the military is a core function of the presidency (and it doesn't get much more core than explicitly named in the constitution) then anything done in that role is absolutely immune and neither anything done in that role nor any motives related to it can be considered. You literally have to argue that giving the military an order is a separate thing than commanding the military for is to only be presumptively immune and for what the order is to even be relevant.

Posse Comitatus Act

 

[Kwak]

Copypasta...

Oleg101
•
1h ago


Here are all the connections between Project 2025 and Trump statements:

Christian Nationalism:

‘Christianity Will Have Power’ (Published 2020)

Donald Trump made a promise to white evangelical Christians, whose support can seem mystifying to the outside observer.

www.nytimes.com

Trump says he'll defend Christianity from 'radical left' that seek to 'tear down crosses'

Trump spoke at the National Religious Broadcasters International Christian Media Convention on Thursday night. He says that "every communist regime throughout history has tried to stamp out the churches," claiming that the "radical left" wants "to tear down crosses where they can, and cover them...

www.pbs.org

Trump Vows to Empower Political Pastors on Christian Nationalist Broadcast

In interview with Christian nationalist Gene Bailey on Flashpoint program, Trump vowed to empower religious leaders politically

www.rollingstone.com

Canceling Climate Change

On Fox, Donald Trump Calls Climate Change A ‘Hoax’: ‘In The 1920’s They Were Talking About Global Freezing’

“If you look into the 1920s," Trump said, "they were talking about a global freezing, okay? In other words, the globe was going to freeze.”

www.forbes.com

Trump denies climate science and says ‘we shouldn’t be worried about global warming’

Trump has previously also called climate change ‘nonexistent’ and ‘make-believe problem’

www.independent.co.uk

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/14/912799501/i-don-t-think-science-knows-visiting-fires-trump-denies-climate-change

Control of the Federal Government

Inside Trump’s Fascist Plan to Control All Federal Agencies if He Wins

Trump has a detailed plan to consolidate power if he retakes the White House.

newrepublic.com

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

The 19 federal agencies Trump wants to eliminate

President Trump’s budget blueprint proposes eliminating 19 federal agencies.Here’s a run-down of the agencies and what they do, from supporting arts and public television to building infrastructure…

thehill.com

Use the DoJ and FBI to arrest critics and opponents

Trump has threatened dozens of times to use the government to target political enemies - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Trump has repeatedly promised to weaponize the federal government during a second administration by pursuing revenge, retaliation and retribution against his political enemies.

www.citizensforethics.org

Fire the Civil Service

Trump vows to fire bureaucrats. Here’s why Biden is trying to stop him.

Americans have declining confidence in the civil service. The two presidential front-runners disagree on whether these workers are nonpartisan.

www.csmonitor.com

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-plan-gut-civil-service-triggers-pushback-by-unions-democrats-2023-12-22/

Trump Just Signed an Executive Order Letting Him Purge Thousands of Federal Workers for Disloyalty

Even if he loses, the action could sabotage a Biden administration indefinitely.

www.vanityfair.com

Replace civil servants with loyalists

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/08/03/distressing-republicans-eyeing-2024-race-support-plot-purge-federal-workers

Trump lays out plan to fire civil servants and replace them with loyalists

‘We need to make it much easier to fire rogue bureaucrats deliberately undermining democracy’

www.independent.co.uk

https://www.project2025.org/personnel/

Mass Deportations

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/trump-immigration-what-matters/index.html

Trump again vows to deport millions of migrants. Could he really do it?

Central to Donald Trump's run for president is a dark pledge to deport millions of migrants illegally living in the U.S. if elected.

abcnews.go.com

Make abortion illegal

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/trump-gay-marriage-abortion-supreme-court/index.html

The Trump campaign is touting its anti-abortion agenda. Here's what's at stake

Trump once publicly supported the right to have an abortion. But as president, he’s made limiting access a signature issue.

www.usatoday.com

Trump, a late convert to cause, attends anti-abortion rally

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump vowed to stand with anti-abortion activists Friday as he became the first sitting president to speak at the March for Life, an annual gathering that is one of the movement's highest profile and most symbolic events.

apnews.com

Canceling transgender rights

Trump Attacks Transgender Rights, Takes Aim at 'Left-Wing Gender Insanity'

In his bid for reelection, former President Donald Trump released a video on Tuesday and outlined a sweeping set of proposals to wield federal power to attack transgender people.

www.rollingstone.com

Trump Administration Proposes Rollback of Transgender Protections (Published 2019)

The Department of Health and Human Services proposed to roll back Obama-era protections of transgender people, narrowing the definition of sex for health care coverage.

www.nytimes.com

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article277322158.html

Here is the complete list of the 31 authors and editors of Project 2025 that have formal connections to the Trump administration:"

What Trump doesn't want you to know about Project 2025

Project 2025 is a radical blueprint for a potential second Trump administration, spearheaded by the right-wing Heritage Foundation. The plan calls for withdrawing approval for the abortion pill, banning pornography, slashing corporate taxes, abolishing the Department of Education, replacing...

popular.info

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/a...pe-government-and-trumps-links-to-its-authors the

 

[Schadrach]

Posse Comitatus Act

And? Again, you've got a case where POTUS can give the military illegal orders and pardon those orders when followed and is absolutely immune in doing so. Pointing out an example of why those orders might be illegal doesn't change anything.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And? Again, you've got a case where POTUS can give the military illegal orders and pardon those orders when followed and is absolutely immune in doing so. Pointing out an example of why those orders might be illegal doesn't change anything.

If you can't use the military for domestic issues, then using the military for domestic issues is not an official action of the president.

 

[Trunkage]

There was a ton of fucking looting during the BLM riots, burning buildings, taking over part of a city, etc. I wasn't taking roll call on who is and who isn't officially part of BLM, but my eyes can see what was happening. If BLM can be called mostly peaceful by the media, so can January 6th is my point, it's a double standard.

I never said covid vaccines killed even 1 person.

Just so we are clear, 15 to 26 million people went to those BLM protests. At most 80k went to Jan 6. BLM went for over 6mths

All those rioting you are talking about is across thousands of cities over 200 days and you are combining them into one package like it happened in one spot on one night

And, as I said, the first day was the worst. Once the initial shock of a government agent killing someone in cold blood wore off, it became far more peaceful. But it's still 20 million people and someone is going to do something wrong with that many people

We are still talking about violence not being okay. Your whole country started with riots and violence and a war and blood. Are you against the revolutionary war? Because, if you are not then you KNOW some violence is justified

 

[Trunkage]

If you can't use the military for domestic issues, then using the military for domestic issues is not an official action of the president.

You say can't like it's illegal. And that illegal is something the president can't do.

This is false

Edit: I should reword the word sentence. If Trump uses the military in a domestic situation, I have no doubt that you will justify it. You might not call it legal but you will justify it

 

[tstorm823]

Or to put it another way, why do you think Trump trying to use the DOJ and VP to find any way they can conceive of to overturn an election he lost should be immune under this, but expect there to be some kind of strict scrutiny and narrow limits on immunity for powers explicitly granted by the Constitution (when things like "telling your VP not to certify the election" is protected)?

Investigation of election fraud is specifically within the authority of the DOJ, that's why they called that out specifically as immune.
Telling your VP not to certify is not specifically within the authority of the president, that is why they sent that back down to the lower courts.

This is not that complicated.

 

[Silvanus]

Investigation of election fraud is specifically within the authority of the DOJ, that's why they called that out specifically as immune.

This is not that complicated.

Cool. So just call whatever you want "investigation of election fraud", including-- as Trump did-- stuff that's clearly not actually that, and it becomes immune!

 

[Schadrach]

If you can't use the military for domestic issues, then using the military for domestic issues is not an official action of the president.

The president is functionally immune to the Posse Comitatus Act in all cases because of this decision.

Like, this is precisely the kind of thing that this decision covers - it's doing a thing, that is explicitly a crime, that the president only has the authority to even try to do while acting within a function explicitly given to him by the Constitution and therefore is absolutely immune while doing it.