eric76 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

And that pardon power is only limited when it is an impeachment issue.

---

The open question is whether the President can pardon himself.

I say no for several reasons. But we might be getting off topic.

---

He can pardon himself but I would contend it would be INVALIDATE by impeachment proceedings resulting in a Senate conviction. If not impeachment with conviction, pardon is valid (and frankly unnecessary as their can be no criminal POTUS proceedings outside of impeachment).

Its not an open question at all. Just requires understanding the Constitution.

---

It is well founded in law that an impeachment cannot punish anyone for criminal acts. All it does is remove them from office and maybe from ever holding office again.

---

You don't think removal from office and barring from ever holding high office again is NOT punishment? Maybe that is where you are going off rails.

You and I disagree. I have clearly stated my reasoning and my position. I have cited my source as the actual language of the Constitution.

You just keep posting again and again that I am wrong. Quit derailing.

aggiehawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Here's a fun one to think about. Suppose a president is impeached by the House, and prior to the Senate taking up the case, the President has the entire Senate arrested to prevent them from hearing the case. What then? I realize we may be at the point of tanks rolling in the streets when that happens, but it's a fun thought exercise.

---

Arrested for what?

---

I mean in theory he could arrest them but I think that would guarantee the conviction happens. That would seem to be a very effective check and balance... sort of what the FFs and Constitution intends.

To keep a POTUS from going full tilt tyrant, there is impeachment and removal from office. If you want to chase him further for criminal prosecutions, then go for it though I think the FFs actually intended for there to be no further punishment, criminal or otherwise, after they have been deposed.

Its one of the reasons the English system removed death as a punishment for impeachment if I read an earlier post correctly.

Quote:

---

That's my feeling on it as well. Anything that's an official act while President, he's immune. A private act, not so much. We fought a war to get away from having a monarch, and I find it impossible to think that our Founding Fathers would have set up a President with that much power.

---

Hence the problem with Smith's framing of the question and the omission of official acts within that question.

Procedurally, the Court has a few outs to granting cert at this stage. That is one of them. Smith may have screwed himself there by not narrowing the question presented to them.

Sarge 91 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

0-0. They won't give cert at this time.

If they do grant cert, they will rule in the state's favor 7-2. Why? For the simple reason if you take the other side, a President could for example kill someone in the residence in cold blood and be immune from prosecution. That or any of a number of other crimes not at all related to the duties of the office for which the President is entitled to immunity. It also is saying the President is above the law which is the way it is in a dictatorship or monarchy.

---

Wrong. Part of the question presented in this case is, if the POTUS is then impeached and convicted for this high crime, then the immunity defense would not apply.

---

Correct... I think. For POTUS, I question if that would truly be the case, which is a bit of a diversion from my previous thought. See other post above.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That's my feeling on it as well. Anything that's an official act while President, he's immune. A private act, not so much. We fought a war to get away from having a monarch, and I find it impossible to think that our Founding Fathers would have set up a President with that much power.

---

Hence the problem with Smith's framing of the question and the omission of official acts within that question.

Procedurally, the Court has a few outs to granting cert at this stage. That is one of them. Smith may have screwed himself there by not narrowing the question presented to them.

---

The question that persists is who gets to determine official vs private? POTUS is the ultimate authority on their intentions and basis for their action.

If the response is a grand jury, DA, federal court, federal judge, federal jury, etc then that puts their authority ABOVE the POTUS. I just do not see the basis for them having that authority.

fka ftc said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That's my feeling on it as well. Anything that's an official act while President, he's immune. A private act, not so much. We fought a war to get away from having a monarch, and I find it impossible to think that our Founding Fathers would have set up a President with that much power.

---

Hence the problem with Smith's framing of the question and the omission of official acts within that question.

Procedurally, the Court has a few outs to granting cert at this stage. That is one of them. Smith may have screwed himself there by not narrowing the question presented to them.

---

The question that persists is who gets to determine official vs private? POTUS is the ultimate authority on their intentions and basis for their action.

If the response is a grand jury, DA, federal court, federal judge, federal jury, etc then that puts their authority ABOVE the POTUS. I just do not see the basis for them having that authority.

---

But that is the checks and balances built into the US system. None of the three branches is totally separated from the other two. If POTUS gets to decide, then POTUS is accused, judge, jury and executioner. That is clearly not what the framers of the constitution wanted. If there was one branch built stronger than the other two, it is Congress and specifically the US House.

With your idea, Biden should have had sole authority to decide on things like student debt relief and if it was legal.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That's my feeling on it as well. Anything that's an official act while President, he's immune. A private act, not so much. We fought a war to get away from having a monarch, and I find it impossible to think that our Founding Fathers would have set up a President with that much power.

---

Hence the problem with Smith's framing of the question and the omission of official acts within that question.

Procedurally, the Court has a few outs to granting cert at this stage. That is one of them. Smith may have screwed himself there by not narrowing the question presented to them.

---

The district court determined there is no criminal immunity, full stop. Hence the language of the question.

Besides, there is nothing about the question presented that would limit or prevent the Court in answering "There is immunity for official acts" or otherwise discussing the limits and boundaries of any possible criminal immunity. This is not an issue.

Quote:

---

The question that persists is who gets to determine official vs private?

---

Ultimately, the Court.

The Court did so on a civil basis in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. There is no prohibition from the Court addressing the same issue in a criminal setting.

Kansas Kid said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That's my feeling on it as well. Anything that's an official act while President, he's immune. A private act, not so much. We fought a war to get away from having a monarch, and I find it impossible to think that our Founding Fathers would have set up a President with that much power.

---

Hence the problem with Smith's framing of the question and the omission of official acts within that question.

Procedurally, the Court has a few outs to granting cert at this stage. That is one of them. Smith may have screwed himself there by not narrowing the question presented to them.

---

The question that persists is who gets to determine official vs private? POTUS is the ultimate authority on their intentions and basis for their action.

If the response is a grand jury, DA, federal court, federal judge, federal jury, etc then that puts their authority ABOVE the POTUS. I just do not see the basis for them having that authority.

---

But that is the checks and balances built into the US system. None of the three branches is totally separated from the other two. If POTUS gets to decide, then POTUS is accused, judge, jury and executioner. That is clearly not what the framers of the constitution wanted. If there was one branch built stronger than the other two, it is Congress and specifically the US House.

With your idea, Biden should have had sole authority to decide on things like student debt relief and if it was legal.

---

Unless SCOTUS says it is not illegal. Then if he continues to do it, he gets impeached and removed from office. That, or Congress has control of purse strings and can defund POTUS.

What you are suggesting is that the judicial is elevated above the executive. Regarding accuser. judge, jury and executioner... happens all the time with drone strikes and similar. Does he have to check with a DA in Kentucky before he ensures he can order a drone strike?

And you say "well obviously a drone strike is within his duties" and I generally agree, but still someone has to decide that. For POTUS, the authority to decide if they acted appropriate is election every 4 years or impeachment, conviction and removal from office.

aggiehawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Here's a fun one to think about. Suppose a president is impeached by the House, and prior to the Senate taking up the case, the President has the entire Senate arrested to prevent them from hearing the case. What then? I realize we may be at the point of tanks rolling in the streets when that happens, but it's a fun thought exercise.

---

Arrested for what?

---

Well, as some have mentioned here...for being Democrats. They've literally said they'd like to see anyone who voted for Biden be arrested for treason due to the state of the nation.

I think you are approaching this logically/legally. We're at a point where Trump on day one is good with dictatorial actions. Are we really good with Presidents having complete immunity because they can just excuse it as part of their duties and let history decide if they actually were?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The question that persists is who gets to determine official vs private?

---

Ultimately, the Court.

The Court did so on a civil basis in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. There is no prohibition from the Court addressing the same issue in a criminal setting.

---

Right. That's a legal question that the courts are the arbiters of.

They did this in the Nixon case, they did so in the Clinton case, the DC Circuit just did it in the Trump civil case, and they do so all the time for all the other people out there that have some kind of immunity claim.

Quote:

---

Well, as some have mentioned here...for being Democrats. They've literally said they'd like to see anyone who voted for Biden be arrested for treason due to the state of the nation.

I think you are approaching this logically/legally. We're at a point where Trump on day one is good with dictatorial actions. Are we really good with Presidents having complete immunity because they can just excuse it as part of their duties and let history decide if they actually were?

---

I don't know any other way to approach these questions. LOL.

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Here's a fun one to think about. Suppose a president is impeached by the House, and prior to the Senate taking up the case, the President has the entire Senate arrested to prevent them from hearing the case. What then? I realize we may be at the point of tanks rolling in the streets when that happens, but it's a fun thought exercise.

---

Arrested for what?

---

Well, as some have mentioned here...for being Democrats. They've literally said they'd like to see anyone who voted for Biden be arrested for treason due to the state of the nation.

I think you are approaching this logically/legally. We're at a point where Trump on day one is good with dictatorial actions. Are we really good with Presidents having complete immunity because they can just excuse it as part of their duties and let history decide if they actually were?

---

Who stated this and was actually serious and not flying off the handle making ridiculous statements?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The question that persists is who gets to determine official vs private?

---

Ultimately, the Court.

The Court did so on a civil basis in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. There is no prohibition from the Court addressing the same issue in a criminal setting.

---

The court ruled in FAVOR of absolute immunity, no?

Quote:

---

Yes. The Court held that the President "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts." This sweeping immunity, argued Justice Powell, was a function of the "President's unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of separation of powers and supported by our history."

---

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/79-1738

There was discussion about other immunities including criminal but it is not settled.

US v Nixon dealt with executive privilege if I recall and that POTUS could not prevent another branch from requesting information even when privilege is claimed.

Am I missing something?

agracer said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Here's a fun one to think about. Suppose a president is impeached by the House, and prior to the Senate taking up the case, the President has the entire Senate arrested to prevent them from hearing the case. What then? I realize we may be at the point of tanks rolling in the streets when that happens, but it's a fun thought exercise.

---

Arrested for what?

---

Well, as some have mentioned here...for being Democrats. They've literally said they'd like to see anyone who voted for Biden be arrested for treason due to the state of the nation.

I think you are approaching this logically/legally. We're at a point where Trump on day one is good with dictatorial actions. Are we really good with Presidents having complete immunity because they can just excuse it as part of their duties and let history decide if they actually were?

---

Who stated this and was actually serious and not flying off the handle making ridiculous statements?

---

I was being decently serious though I did caveat that they are still entitled to due process.

AggieHawg was only answering who decides if immunity applies. She said the courts decide. Which is correct.

fka ftc said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That's my feeling on it as well. Anything that's an official act while President, he's immune. A private act, not so much. We fought a war to get away from having a monarch, and I find it impossible to think that our Founding Fathers would have set up a President with that much power.

---

Hence the problem with Smith's framing of the question and the omission of official acts within that question.

Procedurally, the Court has a few outs to granting cert at this stage. That is one of them. Smith may have screwed himself there by not narrowing the question presented to them.

---

The question that persists is who gets to determine official vs private? POTUS is the ultimate authority on their intentions and basis for their action.

If the response is a grand jury, DA, federal court, federal judge, federal jury, etc then that puts their authority ABOVE the POTUS. I just do not see the basis for them having that authority.

---

But that is the checks and balances built into the US system. None of the three branches is totally separated from the other two. If POTUS gets to decide, then POTUS is accused, judge, jury and executioner. That is clearly not what the framers of the constitution wanted. If there was one branch built stronger than the other two, it is Congress and specifically the US House.

With your idea, Biden should have had sole authority to decide on things like student debt relief and if it was legal.

---

Unless SCOTUS says it is not illegal. Then if he continues to do it, he gets impeached and removed from office. That, or Congress has control of purse strings and can defund POTUS.

What you are suggesting is that the judicial is elevated above the executive. Regarding accuser. judge, jury and executioner... happens all the time with drone strikes and similar. Does he have to check with a DA in Kentucky before he ensures he can order a drone strike?

And you say "well obviously a drone strike is within his duties" and I generally agree, but still someone has to decide that. For POTUS, the authority to decide if they acted appropriate is election every 4 years or impeachment, conviction and removal from office.

---

This is like everything all of us do in everyday life. We don't go to court to decide if we can do something. We evaluate it and decide understanding I am subject to "judicial review" such as if I decide to go 150 mph, no one can stop me preemptively but I am subject to getting stopped and fined/arrested. If i kill someone driving 150, I am looking at serious jail time.

In the case of a drone strike against state enemies, the President is deciding if he has the authority. In that case, I think almost everyone would agree he does but if he decides to kill his spouse with a drone because he is pissed at her, that would be subject to impeachment AND criminal prosecution IMO. (That said, I understand the military is highly unlikely to carry out that order. I am using it as an example to show POTUS isn't all powerful and immune to judicial oversight)

Also, are you saying Obamacare wasn't subject to judicial review because Congress approved it and the President signed it into law.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The question that persists is who gets to determine official vs private?

---

Ultimately, the Court.

The Court did so on a civil basis in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. There is no prohibition from the Court addressing the same issue in a criminal setting.

---

Right. That's a legal question that the courts are the arbiters of.

They did this in the Nixon case, they did so in the Clinton case, the DC Circuit just did it in the Trump civil case, and they do so all the time for all the other people out there that have some kind of immunity claim.

---

Are you arguing that the Court decided for itself that it had the authority?

Clinton case (assuming the Jones one) was whether the sitting POTUS could face civil liability from actions BEFORE they were POTUS.

Nixon v Fitzgerald supports Trumps claim of immunity BTW.

The court noted the president is not immune from criminal charges from either official or unofficial acts though that is not what they decided and they laid out no process for how that was to occur (or maybe they did and I would be happy to read it if so).

TXAggie2011 said:

---

AggieHawg was only answering who decides if immunity applies. She said the courts decide. Which is correct.

---

Regarding POTUS, I do not think that would be or should be the case. It gives SCOTUS power ABOVE the Executive.

Kansas Kid said:

---

This is like everything all of us do in everyday life. We don't go to court to decide if we can do something. We evaluate it and decide understanding I am subject to "judicial review" such as if I decide to go 150 mph, no one can stop me preemptively but I am subject to getting stopped and fined/arrested. If i kill someone driving 150, I am looking at serious jail time.

In the case of a drone strike against state enemies, the President is deciding if he has the authority. In that case, I think almost everyone would agree he does but if he decides to kill his spouse with a drone because he is pissed at her, that would be subject to impeachment AND criminal prosecution IMO. (That said, I understand the military is highly unlikely to carry out that order. I am using it as an example to show POTUS isn't all powerful and immune to judicial oversight)

Also, are you saying Obamacare wasn't subject to judicial review because Congress approved it and the President signed it into law.

---

Court reviews whether the laws are constitutional, not the action in the case of Obamacare.

You proved my point on droning Jill Biden. Though Joe is entitled to claim he was pissed because she gave Putin a hummer whilst he reviewed classified documents in which case maybe he is justified.

But deciding whether that is valid to count as an official act is what impeachment is for. Its not what a DC court is for,

fka ftc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

AggieHawg was only answering who decides if immunity applies. She said the courts decide. Which is correct.

---

Regarding POTUS, I do not think that would be or should be the case. It gives SCOTUS power ABOVE the Executive.

---

So I assume with your views, you disagree with Biden v Nebraska because the SC ruled he had taken actions for which he wasn't authorized. That case put the SC over POTUS.

Quote:

---

The court ruled in FAVOR of absolute immunity, no?

---

On the narrow question of civil liability for official acts. Not the same issue as being presented here.

Nixon v. Fitgerald is informative but not dispositive of the issues in Trump's DC case and by extension the state Georgia case.

Kansas Kid said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

AggieHawg was only answering who decides if immunity applies. She said the courts decide. Which is correct.

---

Regarding POTUS, I do not think that would be or should be the case. It gives SCOTUS power ABOVE the Executive.

---

So I assume with your views, you disagree with Biden v Nebraska because the SC ruled he had taken actions for which he wasn't authorized. That case put the SC over POTUS.

---

Whether or not he had the power to forgive loans is a wholly different question than whether a POTUS committed a crime whilst giving a speech.

That ruling merely said that the authority provided by Congress with the HEROES act did not extend to student loan forgiveness due to COVID.

If Biden instead ordered the forgiveness on the same basis and said SCOTUS is wrong, do you file theft charges in a Nebraska court and arrest POTUS? Or do you impeach him?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The court ruled in FAVOR of absolute immunity, no?

---

On the narrow question of civil liability for official acts. Not the same issue as being presented here.

Nixon v. Fitgerald is informative but not dispositive of the issues in Trump's DC case and by extension the state Georgia case.

---

Absolutely agree. Have they ruled on the criminal aspect? What I saw in Nixon v Fitzgerald was their commentary which only serves to muddy the waters.

Edit to Add: I am going to take a back seat rather than dominate the thread with my thoughts. I appreciate the other perspectives even if I do not agree or wholly agree with them, and in particular your knowledge and your reasoning Hawg. As another mentioned, its logical and direct which I appreciate.

We are in completely uncharted waters and at the crux of what POTUS can do / cannot do and who holds them in check. SCOTUS noted in Nixon v Fitzgerald that POTUS is unique in how they are kept in check - via the public, the press and impeachment. My thinking follows that to a large extent.

fka ftc said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Our system of checks and balances should mean that presidential federal crimes are handled through impeachment PLUS conviction.

Unfortunately, our system was not designed for an unchristian people and there's no solution that keeps presidents accountable beyond their tenure which wouldn't become a tool of political destruction.

---

No, it doesn't and it never has worked that way.

Impeachment only removes one from office. It has no criminal penalties of any form. It was never intended as a substitute for a criminal prosecution of anyone.

---

According to whom? Where you there in Philadelphia when this old document was drafted?

Impeachment was intended to keep a POTUS in check and acting like a dictator / king by way of a legal process to remove them from office / power.

It was not intended as a means to threaten a POTUS into doing certain things the opposing party wants or as a means to harass a POTUS.

And it it is not about a criminal process, then why does it mention "high crimes and misdemeanors" and not simply say "**** congress folk don't like".

---

Have you ever heard of Alexander Hamilton?

He was the author of Federalist Paper #69. In the paper, he clearly stated that a former President can be charged with criminal acts that occurred while he was President and that if he is in office, he may be removed from office before prosecution for those criminal acts:

Quote:

---

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.

---

fka ftc said:

---

eric76 said:

---

That is completely wrong.

Impeachments are only about removal from office. Nobody ever faces any criminal penalties from an impeachment.

---

Flagged for false information and for continual derail.

---

You are the one spreading false information.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

The United States is asking the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion as to the constitutionality of defendant's defense to prosecution.

---

Not quite true. The defendant in this case has made a motion to dismiss the charges because of immunity. The United States does not believe such immunity exists. The question is whether or not the appeal has merit.

My guess, certoriari will be granted before the holiday break and a decision that unqualified immunity does not exist for the President made in January 2024.

I just don't see the Supreme Court ceding judicial authority over the Executive. The whole balance of power system isn't going to work if it doesn't apply to the Chief Executive.

The big question for me is whether or not it will be a 9-0 decision or 7-2 or even 4-3. If it is 9-0 it will indicate that even big money is abandoning Trump. If the likes of Harlan Crow, Anthony Welters, and the Koch Bros. aren't demanding Thomas and Alito stand behind Trump, that will be a very big tell.

fka ftc said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

AggieHawg was only answering who decides if immunity applies. She said the courts decide. Which is correct.

---

Regarding POTUS, I do not think that would be or should be the case. It gives SCOTUS power ABOVE the Executive.

---

So I assume with your views, you disagree with Biden v Nebraska because the SC ruled he had taken actions for which he wasn't authorized. That case put the SC over POTUS.

---

Whether or not he had the power to forgive loans is a wholly different question than whether a POTUS committed a crime whilst giving a speech.

That ruling merely said that the authority provided by Congress with the HEROES act did not extend to student loan forgiveness due to COVID.

If Biden instead ordered the forgiveness on the same basis and said SCOTUS is wrong, do you file theft charges in a Nebraska court and arrest POTUS? Or do you impeach him?

---

You keep referring to impeachment as the ultimate outcome of anything POTUS does that is illegal. While that is clearly one part of the punishment, all impeachment can do is remove someone from office and bar them from future office. That would imply they are immune from criminal prosecution because your view is they can solely decide what is their official duties

I get back to the theoretical case of Biden kills Jill in the residence and says he did it as part of his official duties because she is a spy. Are you saying he can't be tried in court because he alone decided it was an official act and the courts can't review that issue because it puts them over POTUS? I really struggle with this view because it literally says from a criminal perspective, the President is above the law as long as he says what he did was his official duties.

fka ftc said:

---

eric76 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

And that pardon power is only limited when it is an impeachment issue.

---

The open question is whether the President can pardon himself.

I say no for several reasons. But we might be getting off topic.

---

He can pardon himself but I would contend it would be INVALIDATE by impeachment proceedings resulting in a Senate conviction. If not impeachment with conviction, pardon is valid (and frankly unnecessary as their can be no criminal POTUS proceedings outside of impeachment).

Its not an open question at all. Just requires understanding the Constitution.

---

It is well founded in law that an impeachment cannot punish anyone for criminal acts. All it does is remove them from office and maybe from ever holding office again.

---

You don't think removal from office and barring from ever holding high office again is NOT punishment? Maybe that is where you are going off rails.

You and I disagree. I have clearly stated my reasoning and my position. I have cited my source as the actual language of the Constitution.

You just keep posting again and again that I am wrong. Quit derailing.

---

Removal from office is not punishment no matter how much it may inconvenience him. Criminal punishment comes in the forms of imprisonment and/or fines, not removal from office.

My answers and information have been 100% consistent with Hamilton. Though I did have a question on subsequent prosecution for crimes after removal from office and Hamilton seems to say that is permissible and I have no issue with that whatsoever. But note that is not specific in the US Constitution (neither prescribed nor prohibited) so its open to interpretation.

Without God and morals, this nation will not survive because the godless immoral will walk all over the constitution.
Yes the president is immune, totally. A godless 'free for all' to rape, murder, criminally corrupt acts,...

Dumb ass godless voting for godless leaders cannot expect moral Christian leadership; such a confusing dilemma when godless think they have morals.

SCOTUS should deliver a ruling based on God and the Christian morality that entails.

Kansas Kid said:

---

You keep referring to impeachment as the ultimate outcome of anything POTUS does that is illegal. While that is clearly one part of the punishment, all impeachment can do is remove someone from office and bar them from future office. That would imply they are immune from criminal prosecution because your view is they can solely decide what is their official duties

I get back to the theoretical case of Biden kills Jill in the residence and says he did it as part of his official duties because she is a spy. Are you saying he can't be tried in court because he alone decided it was an official act and the courts can't review that issue because it puts them over POTUS? I really struggle with this view because it literally says from a criminal perspective, the President is above the law as long as he says what he did was his official duties.

---

100% yes. Else any court across the land could challenge any action taken by POTUS if they considered it not an official act. Start giving the motorcade speeding tickets and such.

fka ftc said:

---

My answers and information have been 100% consistent with Hamilton. Though I did have a question on subsequent prosecution for crimes after removal from office and Hamilton seems to say that is permissible and I have no issue with that whatsoever. But note that is not specific in the US Constitution (neither prescribed nor prohibited) so its open to interpretation.

---

The impeachment clause is about removing certain officials, including the President, from office. It is not a criminal trial and does not remove the liability of a criminal trial.

Courts decide if immunity exists at all, and decide if immunity applies in a specific case. End of story. That's our system.

The Courts did not have the power to fire A. Ernest Fitzgerald. President Nixon did.

President Nixon did not have the power to decide if he was liable for firing A. Ernest Fitzgerald. The Courts did.

Separation of powers. Checks and balances.

The main thing to remember is that the colonists came to America to escape a monarchy that was above the law. It would be preposterous for them to turn around and create a President who was above the law.

Instead, they very explicitly left a mechanism in place so that he could be removed from office and then tried for his crimes by a jury of his peers.