Subject: Re: SCOTUS on POTUS immunity
But it's also the type of decision that can have a significant impact on a lot of criminal and financial matters, and it's not hard to imagine a scenario (albeit an uncommon one) where someone might suggest that the President's decision to pull the U.S. out of such agreement was to help someone obtain financial gain or avoid potential criminal enforcement.

------------------

I understand the scenario and the gray area it entails but that's why I have no qualms about providing zero immunity. If someone wants to make that charge and they can get not only a prosecutor to investigate but a grand jury to indict, then so be it. I'd prefer a rule that errs on the side of being a bit onerous to an honest President than one that gives a corrupt President a larger patch of gray in which to operate corruptly and get away with something.


WTH