303
Mitch McConnell Breaks With Trump on Absolute Presidential Immunity
(www.thedailybeast.com)
But you didn't break with him when it counted you jagoff.
And he was a piece of shit since long before the Trump administration
And he'll continue to be a piece of shit until he's rotting in the ground.
He'll talk out both sides of his mouth. He will say the president doesn't have absolute immunity but be the first in line to sign legislation that says just that.
Get fucked McConnell, you let him be immune when you had the opportunity to hold him accountable.
Fuck off and die, traitor.
Seriously, if he thinks this makes him look any better for all the shit he put us through, he better fucking think again.
He is a big reason as to why everything is so bad. He enabled all of this. This is his legacy.
They needed to press him in a different way:
"During the Trump impeachment, you said that he could still be held accountable in a court of law, his lawyers are trying to argue that only stands if he were impeached and convicted first.
If the Supreme Court validates that opinion, would you change your mind and vote to convict?"
That wouldn't really matter. He'll do and say whatever suits him politically at the moment.
Like when he held up Garland's Supreme Court nomination for a year and then jammed Barrett through while ballots were being collected.
Uh huh. Just like you were outraged at the audacity of a violent mob threatening democracy itself the day it happened, and then you covered for Trump and blocked his impeachment days later.
Go fuck yourself, mitch.
I don't understand what there is to discuss here at all. If the US president had immunity as a matter of principle, he wouldn't be a president, he'd be some kind of god-king (even kings couldn't do whatever they wanted).
Right? I thought we settled this debate circa 1776.
Which is basically what trump argues he is.
Well, I'm not very familiar with the US Constitution. But if there really is any leeway for such advances, it doesn't seem to me to be a good constitution for a democratic country.
From what I understand it's just another way he's making a mockery of the justice system. He's making these absurd claims so he can have new cases come up and delay delay delay delay. Once he becomes president he can then have his DOJ dog wipe it all away.
The conservatives agree... For conservative presidents only, of course.
There ia no such thing as a "good conservative". Each one is a cancer cell in the global disease that kills and oppresses normal people.
Actually, as a leading legislator in charge of creating our laws, it very much should be your job to decide this principle for future cases. I understand if you want to leave it to the next generation, though. You've done enough, Mitch.
Frankly if you don't break with him on this you're literally a traitor to this country. There's no other way to interpret this.
It's worse than that. The ONLY reason the GOP is breaking on this is to preserve their ability to attack Democrat Presidents.
There's nothing "noble" going on here
It's important to note that the inverse isn't necessarily true, and in fact McConnell is a counterexample: despite the fact that he did break with Trump on this, he's still literally a traitor to this country anyway.
Mitch McConnell will reliably hold this position until a Republican is back in office - just like his objections over lame duck Supreme Court appointments and everything fucking else. How many times is the media going to fall for his bullshit.
It wasn't even a lame duck; it was before the election.
Whatever he says I don't care. I hope he has the worst day ever everyday
I want him to stub his toe every day and get a Charlie horse
Not really. The worst day for McConnell is other people having fun and being happy.
It's body has looked terrified ever since it realized that it's soul was missing.
How is this pile of trash still alive?
Thanks for all the help, Mitch
How many times did he factory reset before he got his full statement out in one go?
Realizes he might get a price put on his head?
Well, I guess it's nice to see this piece of shit sycophant at least has some limits... he still deserves to fall off a cliff into an portal of infinite dick, and get fucked.
To paraphrase RTJ, he can run backwards naked through a field of dicks.
This isn't about limits, this is about being able to go after Biden and any other Democrat Presidents in the future...
This is PURELY self interest...
Now that it is no longer politically inconvenient for him, he comes out against Trump? Wow, color me surprised.
Seems like a lot of Republicans are going to have collective amnesia about their role in supporting Trump when he gets ousted from political power (and that can't come soon enough). No amnesty for spineless coward Republicans when that happens.
He knows he's a dead man if the president has immunity. EVERY Russian asset would be toast, tRump included.
He's probably just scared Trump is going to purge his ass if he wins again.
He, and other Republicans, are scared because this ruling would come when Biden is president and are projecting.
If Trump's lawyer convinces the Supreme Court that the president can assassinate political enemies then that might be a bit scary for the current President's political enemies.
Wasn't it his job to make sure trump was informed on legal matters like these?
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
303 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19145 readers
1775 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS