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.
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
260 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3627 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
Or had he actually impeached trump either time he had the chance.
Not like he thought that was appropriate either
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.
I hope he drowns in a fucking Tesla
I went ‘oof’ internally… then found myself agreeing. He is an evil turtle. 🐢
If Donald Trump wins the case, he will completely reverse everything he's saying right now. he's an absolute pussy just like the other Republicans
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.
I don't trust anything that wormy little turtle scrotum says.
Unless it's death. I'd believe him if he dies.
Alas, I don't live in Kentucky and can't do anything about him continuing to be a political figure.
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….
They're pulling a Ron Swanson about "official acts".
Remember when Ron won that female empowerment award and was giving Leslie a hard time? She said, "That's not the attitude of an award winner."
He replied, "Everything I do is the attitude of an award winner, because I have won an award."
Fuck off and die, traitor.
How is this turtle ass fuck not dead?
Mitch, you stand for absolutely nothing.
I hear he's frozen to the ground on this.
So he thinks Trump is still President?
The gates of hell are calling him home and he's trying to make amends before that happens.
This turtle lies at all costs to further his own position.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
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!
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?