Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) seemed to revise his earlier critique of former President Trump’s actions on January 6, now asserting that Trump’s claim of presidential immunity is “a legitimate claim” amid ongoing legal battles.
During an interview on CBS News’s “Face the Nation,” Graham faced questions about his 2021 statement, suggesting that Trump could face prosecution for his actions. Graham, who voted to acquit Trump in the second impeachment trial after the Capitol attack, responded, “Yeah, it depends on what the conduct is.” He cited Trump’s role as president on January 6, attempting to ascertain the election’s legitimacy, as a basis for the legitimacy of the immunity claim.
Trump currently confronts four criminal indictments, two federal and one each in New York and Georgia, primarily related to efforts to maintain power post the 2020 election defeat. The defense contends that Trump, acting as president at the time, is immune from prosecution. Critics counter this by highlighting his role as a political candidate at a rally before the Capitol attack, disputing the applicability of presidential immunity.
Graham, in defending Trump, said the former president “gave a fiery speech” and suggested Trump played a minimal role in the actual attack.
“They’re prosecuting him for activity around January the sixth. He didn’t break into the Capitol. He gave a fiery speech, but he’s not the first guy to ever do that,” Graham said. “So at the end of the day, I think this case will not go to trial before the election. I think there are more legal issues around this than you can even imagine about — what can a president do as president? What are the limitations of being president?”
Pressed on whether a president should be immune from prosecution, Graham clarified that no one is above the law but continued to support Trump’s immunity claim.
Graham is a wishy-washy anti-Trump shady RINO who claimed Trump is a danger to the world and he would have loved to have seen him impeached for any of the hoax accusations.
Hey, if the presidents of our ivy league schools can say that antisemitism that is just verbal with a conduct is okay and the country seems to buy that bonk because it’s only antisemitism, then, by extension, what the 45th president did should also be okay if there was no conduct!