I would agree except I don’t think it would be out of cowardice, though for many other Republicans it is that. From what I see Mitch makes his choices based on what gives the optimal outcome for himself, and being consistent simply doesn’t play into his calculus at all because being inconsistent basically never harms him.
What the SC is debating, if I understand correctly as a non-American, is YES it’s likely that ex-presidents are not immune from prosecution, however the question is a distinction between “official” vs. “Unofficial” acts, and WHEN those acts were performed (during the presidency or after???). This is such a devious way to appear moderate to swing voters who may be uninformed.
For example, if Dubya goes and shoots someone today, well yeah duh he’s an ex-president that can be prosecuted.
McConnell is framing this in the most innocuous way to purposefully confuse the argument for those who are not paying attention, imo, and to not say the quiet part out loud: Republican ex-presidents shouldn’t be prosecuted but Democrats, on the other hand….
Based on McConnell's past actions, I suspect that the reason he is standing by his previous position is that he doesn't find it politically beneficial to change his opinion. I don't think there is any other type of meaning to McConnell's political positions.
This kind of full stop statement has been used by McConnell in the past to make sure that the entire republican machine gets the memo. That was pre-Trump when McConnell was the republican party, but there are still plenty of people in congress and the media that listen. The question is, are Roberts and Thomas (who used to toe that line), still under his thumb. Or in Thomas's case, is Harlan Crow still toeing that line?
It's out of his hands now, and being decided by a Trump handpicked SCOTUS. He's politically safe making any sort of statement he wants in this specific time window, and so he is. Villain.
Saying that costs nothing. It would have been a hell of a lot more impressive if he hadn't worked so hard to stack the court and put us in this situation to begin with. Fuck you, Mitch.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he stands by comments he made in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol that former presidents, including Donald Trump, are "not immune" from criminal prosecution.
The Supreme Court is now considering whether Trump is entitled to broad immunity from federal prosecution, and its ruling in the matter will be critical in determining the fate of his 2020 election trial.
At issue in the case before the Supreme Court, Trump v. United States, is whether the former president can face criminal charges for allegedly official acts while he was in the White House.
The dispute, which arose from the federal prosecution by special counsel Jack Smith, is the second to come before the justices in their current term with significant consequences for Trump's political future.
McConnell dismissed the idea of fact checking or influencing Trump when the presumptive GOP nominee parrots misinformation about Russia and Ukraine.
I think the fact that our nominee basically decided not to continue whipping people against the package was a good sign, and I'm going to be advocating increasing the defense budget, no matter who gets elected, and preparing ourselves for the long term, which is China, Russia and Iran."
The original article contains 623 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
