XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.democrats.d
XPost: or.politics, talk.politics.guns

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/trump-immunity-hearing-2020-election/677072/


pan: I asked you a yes-or-no question. Could a president who ordered SEAL
Team Six to assassinate a political rival [and] who was not impeached,
would he be subject to criminal prosecution?

sauer: If he were impeached and convicted first—

pan: So your answer is no?

sauer: My answer is a qualified yes.

She and Sauer went around and around on this a
few more times. But the damage was done, and
Pan’s point was devastatingly made—in essence,
that Sauer was arguing out of both sides of
his mouth. On the one hand, Sauer argued that
the Constitution gave the president absolute
immunity for his official acts, lest we have
political prosecutions of former presidents.
On the other hand, if the United States
Congress—a political body if ever there was
one—effectively gives permission (by
impeaching and convicting), well, then, yes,
a president can be prosecuted, and—wait for
it—he’s not absolutely immune.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)