• Klypto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    In my opinion it would be a disaster if you could receive compensation for future policy input, act on that input in office, and be immune simply because you were not in office when you received it.

    Just prove he did or did not do it instead of whatever this nonsense take is.

    • Rusticus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      lol. Here is how this is going to play out. Nothing will happen officially on this until next fall, within 30 days of the election. Then, there will be “leaks” to the media about details of Biden guilt, which will be complete bullshit but an attempt to swing independent voters.

      Source: Hillary Clinton in 2016. Buttery males.

    • JonEFive@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think that that is the case here though. I agree what you’re saying in terms of a presidential candidate for example. But let’s be real, it’s already happening there. Candidates accepting campaign donations in return for implied favorable consideration if they win.

      In my mind though, what you’re taking about still pertains directly to the presidency and would be fair game for impeachment. To me, it isn’t so much important whether the person is in office, but whether the prior action impacts their ability to preside (mostly) free from undue external influence.