You are really making me work on this one Cred. You spoke of " McConnell has made this point of indemnification for a least a couple of months, and that can be shown by any number of sources. So, I did hear this from him. " so I went looking for his own statements.
7/21, from the Senate floor:
"As I have said for months, the next recovery package will include strong legal protections for the healthcare workers who saved strangers’ lives and the schools, colleges, charities, and businesses that want to reopen.
“The American people will not see their historic recovery efforts gobbled up by trial lawyers who are itching to follow this pandemic with a second epidemic of frivolous lawsuits.
“Gross negligence will still be actionable, but we’re creating a safe harbor for institutions that make a good-faith effort to follow the guidelines available to them.
“Doctors and nurses clearly deserve this protection. And school districts, universities, nonprofits, and small businesses will need it, too, if we want any genuine reopening at all."
Source:McConnell Press release
6/30, from the Senate floor:
"“One helpful policy would be strong legal protection for the schools, colleges, nonprofits, and employers that are putting their necks on the line to reopen.
So long as institutions follow the best available guidelines, they should not have to live in fear of a second epidemic of frivolous lawsuits. The virus is worry enough."
Source:McConnellpress release
6/29, from the Senate floor:
"“As I’ve been saying for weeks, a number of us are putting together strong legal protections for healthcare professionals, K-12 schools, colleges and universities, and employers so our recovery is not promptly swamped by a second epidemic of frivolous lawsuits."
Source: McConnell press release
A few other sources of McConnell statements:
"MITCH MCCONNELL: I want to make sure that we protect the people we've already sent assistance to who are going to be set up for an avalanche of lawsuits if we don't act."
"MCCONNELL: What I'm saying is we have a red line on liability. It won't pass the Senate without it."
Source: NPR.org
From the Washington Post:
"McConnell has consistently said the next bill will include liability protections for businesses, health-care providers, universities and schools. He offered a time period for these protections on Monday, saying he envisioned a “narrowly crafted liability protection” for activities related to the novel coronavirus that would kick in December 2019 and last through 2024.
“Unless you’re grossly negligent or intentionally engaged in harmful behavior, you shouldn’t have to be penalized by getting sued on top of everything else, so that’ll be in there, I guarantee it,” McConnell said."
Source: Washington Post
"McConnell told reporters, “We are working on a narrowly crafted liability protection” bill and that “It will not protect somebody from gross negligence.”
Source: Reuters
And then there are the business organizations that are lobbying for this protection, (McConnell supporters that he listens to):
“We’re not interested in protecting bad actors, which is why we’re not looking for a blanket liability shield,” said Linda Kelly, general counsel for the National Association for Manufacturers. “We’re asking for a heightened standard to apply before liability would apply.”
There is more but I will stop here and ask; "Where are you hearing 'from the horse's mouth', as you say, that McConnell is seeking blanket-type immunity?
What authority or support did the article you quote as prompting you to "remember McConnell having a virtual erection, sorry, wanting to indemnify employers against employees who could take legal action when employers had not taken any effort to meet standards of safety in their workplaces in the COVID-19 environment," have or supply?
Every source I found that actually spoke to McConnell's words, (even the anti-Republican sources that included actual quotes), included both McConnell, and supporting actors, qualifying that "bad actors" and instances of "gross negligence" would not be covered by the proposed limited immunity plan.
However, I did find several sources that I think might be on your preferred reading list that say exactly what you are saying—except they don't support their claims with actual quotes, but with just their partisan interpretations:
Mitch McConnell Insists On Liability Protections For Businesses During The Pandemic - A misleading NPR headline
A New YorkTimes headline:
The Brutal Clarity of the Trump-McConnell Plan to Protect Businesses - this one actually uses McConnell quotes that refute the implication of the headline
A Slate headline:
Trump and McConnell’s COVID-19 Liability Protections Are Completely Unnecessary - I was surprised that this one was as mild as it seems but by my reading, its only validation is the claim that businesses don't need extra protections if make honest efforts. Yet it seems that the thousands of suits already filed might belie that claim.
New York Daily News headline:
The devious COVID-19 liability push: Mitch McConnell’s push for coronavirus immunity would shield big businesses that hurt their workers - this one is an off-the-charts gross misrepresentation of McConnell's statements and actual details of the proposed plan
etc. etc. etc.
Hell Cred, by your statement, "I am concerned about the businesses as bad actors not doing their part yet still want to insist on the benefits of indemnification," you might even be in agreement with McConnell and the Republicans—they don't want bad actors or gross negligence indemnified either. ;-)
GA
