Biden Will Sit Down for an "Interview" with Former Bill Clinton Spokesman George Stephanopolous

As RNC Research points out, this interview will not be live. It will be recorded -- and then heavily edited to cover up Biden's stumbles, slurring, incredible football hero stories, authentic frontier gibberish, and episodes of lost time.

ABC News @ABC

EXCLUSIVE: @GStephanopoulos will sit down with Pres. Biden for the exclusive first television interview since the presidential debate. Tune in across ABC News platforms Friday, July 5.

I guess maybe I'll have to post something on Friday. Thanks, Biden! Thanks, Bill Clinton "War-Room" Operative!

Last night, Biden's Brain Trust -- the people trusted to manage his dying brain -- decided that if you can't beat Trump, join him, and trotted out a Nuclear Orange Biden.

Orange Man Senile:

The video of the Senile Orange Man's brief, 4-and-a-half minute statement is here. He read directly from the teleprompter, then quickly turned and left, allowing no actual press questions at this "press event."

The man who's Running to Save Democracy decided, again, to attack the third branch of government, and attempt to bully it into becoming yet another politicized institution.

President Biden called the Supreme Court ruling on former President Trump's immunity claims in his federal Jan. 6 criminal case on Monday a "dangerous precedent."

Why it matters: The high court's 6-3 ruling that Trump had immunity from criminal prosecution for "official acts" taken while in the White House has major implications for presidential power.

What he's saying: Biden said in his Monday evening address that the Supreme Court's majority decision in the Trump case "almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits what the president can do."

Biden obviously wanted to pick a fight over something to give him an excuse to slap on his Savage Bronze Skin Dye and go out there and show he's "in command."

He chose to undermine the authority of the Court. Didn't he just demand that we "respect the judiciary" after the Trump Fake Conviction?

Indeed he did. But that was a month ago, and Biden can't remember having done that.

Of course, the desperate, despicable Biden could not even pretend this wet fart of a statement was about anything other than attempting to do some damage to Trump that he failed to do on Thursday night:

The ruling marks "a fundamentally new principle" and "a dangerous precedent, because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States, the only limits will be self imposed by the president alone," Biden said.

Biden said it meant that "any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law," though he emphasized that he would continue to respect the limits of presidential power.

...

"This decision today has continued the court's attack in recent years on a wide range of long established legal principles in our nation, from gutting voting rights and civil rights to taking away a woman's right to choose to today's decision that undermines the rule of law of this nation," he said.

Why do leftists continue insisting the limited acknowledgment of presidential immunity allows the president to "order Seal Team Six to assassinate a presidential rival?" Because the "wise Latina" Sotormayor lied about that.

There's a thing in politics and law called "the parade of horribles." When you want to attack a ruling, or potential ruling, you start dreaming up this huge parade of horrible, horrible things that will flow from the decision.

But this is a rhetorical gambit, not reality. No one of any intelligence at all believes the president could "order the murder of a rival candidate." (Although, apparently a president can order unending lawfare against a rival.)

So why does every leftist believe this?

Because the Marxist Media that gaslights them at every turn keeps insisting that this ruling means the president can just start murdering people as part of his "core constitutional powers" or something.

Fake Jake strikes again:

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court released their ruling on the hotly contested issue of presidential immunity. The ruling was limited in that presidents had immunity for acts done in an official capacity under the office but certain acts -- particularly those done outside the office of president -- were not. But CNN's Jake Tapper, who's at the center of a $1 billion defamation suit against CNN, kept coming back to an insane, liberal conspiracy theory that the ruling opened the door to presidents assassinating their political rivals.

After playing oral argument audio from April, in which liberal Justice Sotomayor floated the bonkers notion of a president ordering SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, Tapper asked a panel of CNN legal analysts: "Did the court say, 'Yeah, you can assassinate a political rival?'"

He was immediately rebuked by Elie Honig. "No, I don't think they did," he declared, barely letting Tapper finish the question. "The basis for Donald Trump's legal argument that maybe he can order an assassination and still be okay.

If a president can't order an assassination, then Obama should be charged for murder -- for which there is no statute of limitations to save him.

Is that what they want?

No, Fake Jake: Answer us. Is that what you want?

Because we can make that happen for you.

Is this preposterous argument that they offered below that, while a president can only be indicted if he's first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected that argument; impeachment has nothing to do with this, that's not the test."

His fellow legal analysts also shot down Tapper's suggestion (Click "expand"):

ELLIOT WILLIAMS: To your question, Jake, someone's got to decide what's the official act. Right? The challenge here, and this was what Sotomayor was getting at in her point, somebody has to make the call as to whether even the SEAL -- the preposterous SEAL Team 6 example falls under the ambit of official acts and that's litigation months in court?

JIM SCHULTZ: No. Agreed. I think that's something that we'll have to be decided by the trial court, if we were faced with that preposterous type of scenario, no doubt about it.

The media is always telling us to "trust the experts" -- the handpicked leftwing experts they call on for every question, knowing what they'll say ahead of time.

But here, the experts are telling Jake that his scenario is "preposterous."

Fake Jake don't care. He's not going to Trust the Experts at all.

But less than two minutes later, Tapper latched on Sotomayor's dissent to insist that his interpretation of the ruling was correct:

I wanna just read something from a Justice Sotomayor's dissent on some of these issues that we're talking about. "Let the president violate the law." She writes in her dissent, "Let them exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain. Let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like them to be. That is the majority's message today. Orders the Navy SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival: immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power: immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon: immune. Immune, immune, immune."

He prefaced that reading with by bloviating about how "obviously there is a crisis of confidence in the U.S Supreme Court."

CNN anchor Kasie Hunt, who has made a name for herself by shouting down criticism of CNN, agreed with Tapper that Sotomayor's opinion was a "remarkable and very stark way to think about out it."

Video at the link.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 05:39 PM

| Access Comments