I think some immunity seems to imply criminal acts that is not associated with the scope of the office. The President should not be immune from murder, for example.
The President should not be immune from murder, for example.
Not according to liberal justices. Obama has every right to kill Americans with drone strikes. Also, no one mentioned Fast and Furious Gun Running, which was responsible for killing several people.
He is immune from murder from the judicial branch! A president is held accountable for his actions by the legislative branch through the process of impeachment.
Contrary to public opinion, the Senate is not limited to only removing a president that has been impeached. They can impose any sentence they deem fit on his actions.
Let's be clear about something...
No Congress would protect a President who was credibly accused of murder from impeachment and conviction. Not even Schumer would block a conviction in the Senate if Biden actually murdered someone while in office.
There is no reason to bypass the impeachment process with such extreme outlier cases as murder, coup d'etat, etc. If something like that were to actually happen, then impeach, convict, and then indict and try. We don't need a debate on the boundaries of immunity in such outlandish cases when the Constitutional remedy is already in place.
The only reason to entertain such fantasy is if they believe that Congress is so rabidly partisan that they would excuse even murder to maintain power. The solution to such a wild proposition is to elect a better Congress, not to invent new categories of separation of powers like "official duties" and "private duties."
-PJ
“The President should not be immune from murder, for example.”
Definitely true.