Basically: I committed a crime while trying to stay in office illegally, but you can’t hold me to account because I’m running for office.
Pretty much “I’m a big-deal Republican, so you can’t apply the normal rules to me, even though others have run for President from jail”
You do understand that 1) these ideas are floated mostly in jest and 2) they are floated because they map more or less directly to statements Trump has already made outlining his intentions, and he will not require precedent to do so.
Trump didn’t require precedent for anything he did, up to and including not conceding the election and attempting the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. I’m not sure why people say “Appointing additional justices just means the Republicans will do the same!” Of course they’d do it tomorrow if they had the 6-3 position reversed.
Precedent (even in Supreme Court cases), congressional comity, “respect the office of not the man,” and everything else has been thrown out the window in an accelerating process, but completely since 2016.
Setting a precedent means nothing anymore, unless we can expect Joe Biden to order Seal Team Six to assassinate Trump and the FBI to arrest all members of Congress and the courts who would hold him accountable for it. There, he’d have some precedent.
If you don’t have pushback, “in jest” becomes actual violence. Same as with racism and hate.
Trump has literally argued in court that the President can do anything up to and including the assassination of a political rival with no repercussions other than impeachment. By extension, that includes the arrest and assassination of members of Congress and the courts who would oversee his impeachment and/or prosecution. They argued that this is a protected right of the office of the president in the constitution, in front of a judge.
To point out that if the same logic were to be applied by Biden to solve the Trump problem is simply showing the absurdity of the argument. You can unclutch those pearls.