'Even his staff is catching dementia': Biden trolled as White House deletes post with unmistakable flub

WASHINGTON, DC: President Joe Biden’s official White House X account on Tuesday, July 2, 2024, made a notable mistake in a post that was later deleted. The tweet aimed to address a recent decision by a Louisiana federal judge regarding a preliminary injunction on the White House’s ban on new liquefied natural gas exports.

The lawsuit was initiated by 16 Republican states challenging Biden's attempts to limit energy projects.

Social media blunder and Joe Biden's subsequent mockery

When commenting on the ruling, President Joe Biden's account erroneously referred to it as a "Supreme Court ruling" rather than a federal court ruling.

The now-deleted post read, "Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on our pause on Liquified Natural Gas exports is incredibly disappointing. I'll continue doing everything I can to protect our environment and our communities while ensuring America’s energy security."

After recognizing the error, the original post was swiftly removed and replaced with a corrected version that stated, "Yesterday's court ruling on our pause on Liquified Natural Gas exports is incredibly disappointing. I'll continue doing everything I can to protect our environment and our communities, while ensuring America’s energy security."

Despite the deletion, several social media users captured and shared images of the initial post. One image featured a Community Note on X clarifying, "This was not a Supreme Court decision. It was a federal judge in Louisiana."

Biden was widely mocked on social platforms, with some people speculating about who was responsible for the mistake.

"This wasn’t Biden. This was the DEI hire, Karine. Or it was the 'Doctor' Jill. Biden can’t even chew his food," one social media user posted on X.

"Can't blame Biden for it. He's not allowed anywhere near social media," another wrote.

"The sad thing is, it’s not even him posting it. The team running the country because he’s checked out can’t even get their facts straight," read a comment.

"Even his staff is catching dementia," someone else quipped.

"This isn't making anyone feel better about who's running the country. Lol," another chimed in.

Joe Biden's critique of the US Supreme Court

In a related issue, President Joe Biden criticized the US Supreme Court on Monday night following a decision regarding former president Donald Trump's immunity case. In an impromptu White House speech, Biden expressed concerns that the decision dangerously expanded presidential powers.

He stated, “Today’s decision almost certainly means that there are no limits on what a president can do. This is a fundamentally new principle and it’s 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 Supreme Court had ruled that presidents have “absolute immunity” for official acts under their core responsibilities and might have some immunity from criminal prosecution for other official behaviors. However, they do not have immunity for unofficial acts.

Implications for Donald Trump's legal troubles

Trump’s legal team plans to leverage this ruling in his defense across multiple criminal cases. According to sources familiar with their strategy, Trump's lawyers believe this decision will significantly impact the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case.

In Florida, Trump was indicted by a federal grand jury on over 30 felony counts, including unlawfully retaining national defense information and obstruction for allegedly interfering with the government’s attempts to retrieve these materials.

Trump’s attorneys intend to argue that the Supreme Court opinion necessitates the exclusion of evidence related to Trump's time in office and how the classified documents were handled, asserting these are official acts protected by presidential immunity.

This strategy, described by Jessica Levinson, a Constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, as "super creative," faces challenges.

Levinson told CNN, “I don’t blame them, of course, they should make that type of argument. I think it has problems, in the sense that Roberts didn’t say absolutely everything you do while in office is an official act.”

Levinson noted that the core issue is whether a president has the constitutional or statutory authority to take classified documents from the Oval Office. “It seems to me to stretch the opinion beyond its breaking point,” she said.

The federal judge overseeing the Mar-a-Lago case, Aileen Cannon, has yet to hear arguments regarding the applicability of presidential immunity to this case. Known for taking her own time in pre-trial disputes, Cannon has not yet set a trial date.

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.