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….
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.”