Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he does not believe the president should be immune from criminal prosecution while in office, in a tough blow to former ally Donald Trump, but his lawyer had argued before the Supreme Court that the president had complete immunity.
The Kentucky senator said on “Meet the Press” Thursday that he believes the president of the United States should be held accountable for any criminal acts, and that he believes there are limits to liability.
“Obviously the president needs some kind of immunity, otherwise we're always going to be in court. So let's see how the Supreme Court does,” the 82-year-old congressman said.
The Republican senator also said he stands by his comments he made on February 13, 2021, shortly after voting to acquit Trump in his second impeachment trial related to the January 6 Capitol riot.
Despite voting to acquit the former president, Sen. McConnell said, “Unless the statute of limitations has run, President Trump remains accountable for everything he did while in office as a private citizen.” There is. [He] Nothing has escaped yet. ”
“I'm not the one making that decision,” he stressed.
The Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday regarding presidential immunity. The former president's lawyers have argued that he has absolute immunity from federal charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith related to allegations of 2020 election interference.
The justices appeared reluctant to grant Trump complete immunity.
Trump's lawyers have expressed concern that a lack of presidential immunity could affect his ability to carry out his duties due to the threat of politically motivated retaliation. President Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, warned that potential charges, trials and imprisonment “could distort the president's decision-making precisely at the moment when bold and fearless action is most needed.”
Conservative justices seemed open to the potential political persecution argument.
Chief Justice John Roberts said Thursday: “You know how easy it is for prosecutors to get grand juries to indict in many cases, but sometimes relying on a prosecutor's integrity is not enough. Maybe,” he said.
Smith's lawyers, meanwhile, argued that the president does not have broad immunity and argued that no one is above the law. Liberal justices seem to agree that presidents do not have absolute immunity.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson once asked, “If the possibility of criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a grave risk that a future president would be emboldened to commit a crime while in office?'' he asked.
