Exactly. Where does this "absolute immunity" nonsense come from anyway - MSNBC? It doesn't exist in the constitution, nor in legal precedent. The research on this subject isn't hard to find. Nobody is reaching for absolute immunity, and the idea that a POTUS could get away with ordering a hit man to take out his rival is absurd.
"Throughout the Watergate investigation, it was unclear whether the President could be subject to criminal prosecution prior to being convicted upon impeachment.7 The Court, however, resolved that courts may require the President to testify or produce documents in criminal proceedings.8...
Specifically, Chief Justice Marshall declared that, in contrast to common law privileges afforded the King of England, the President was not exempt from the general provisions of the constitution, like the Sixth Amendment, which provides the defense compulsory process.10
Nonetheless, Chief Justice Marshall recognized that while the President could be subject to a criminal subpoena, the President could still withhold information from disclosure based on executive privilege.11 In the two centuries since the Burr trial, the Executive Branch’s practices12 and Supreme Court rulings unequivocally and emphatically endorsed Chief Justice Marshall’s position that the President was subject to federal criminal process.13
In the two centuries since the Burr trial, the Executive Branch’s practices12 and Supreme Court rulings unequivocally and emphatically endorsed Chief Justice Marshall’s position that the President was subject to federal criminal process.13"
Loading…
constitution.congress.gov
