In a remarkable display of shifting principles, the Republican Party and its allies have faced accusations of hypocrisy as they rally behind former President Donald Trump's claims of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his tenure in office. This stance stands in stark contrast to their vehement rejection of a similar claim made by former Democratic President Bill Clinton.

The argument put forth by lawyers for Donald Trump is that he enjoys immunity from prosecution for his official acts, even going as far as suggesting that he could order extreme measures, such as the assassination of members of Congress, without fear of legal consequences unless he was first impeached and convicted. Surprisingly, few Republican officials have expressed any concern over these possibilities, with 18 Republican state attorneys general and 27 congressional Republicans lending their support to Trump's immunity claims.

Notably, The Wall Street Journal, a prominent conservative publication, has become a platform for conservative voices offering strained justifications for Trump's immunity. David B. Rifkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley argue that it is an essential part of the constitutional structure to provide immunity for official actions, as a president threatened with prosecution for such acts would be hindered in carrying out their duties effectively.

The Journal's editorial board echoes this sentiment, accusing the Justice Department of engaging in "lawfare" to defeat a political opponent and asserting that a president needs to have the freedom to make controversial decisions without fear of future prosecution. However, the editorial did concede that a president should not be free to commit unrelated crimes, albeit without acknowledging any criminal activity on Trump's part.

Interestingly, this is not the first time the issue of presidential immunity has been debated. During Clinton's presidency, when he faced a civil lawsuit from Paula Jones, conservatives took a markedly different stance on the matter. The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal both criticized Clinton's claim for immunity, emphasizing that no one, including the president, should be exempt from the laws of the land.

It is important to note that Clinton's claim for immunity was far less audacious than Trump's. He sought immunity only until his term was over and did not assert the right to commit felonies without repercussions. In contrast, Trump's argument appears to grant a president unrestricted freedom, even in committing crimes as extreme as murder.

Critics of the Republican Party's support for Trump's immunity claim have called out the hypocrisy of their position. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and The New York Times, both vocal opponents of Trump, have maintained a consistent stance, rejecting both Clinton's and Trump's claims of presidential immunity. The Supreme Court has also unanimously upheld the principle that no one, including a sitting president, is above the law.

The GOP's shift in principle regarding presidential immunity has raised eyebrows and drawn criticism for what some perceive as a lack of adherence to the rule of law. The shift represents a departure from the party's previous stance on accountability for presidents, leaving some to question the consistency and integrity of their political philosophy.

As the debate over presidential immunity continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how the Republican Party and its allies will reconcile their support for Trump's extreme immunity claim with their previous condemnation of Clinton's more limited request for immunity.